There is no room for anti-Semitism in the Church

What does the cry of the people baying for blood during Christ's Passion really mean?

Much publicity has been given to that significant passage in Pope Benedict’s recent book, Jesus of Nazareth (page 187) when he discusses the cry of the people during the Passion: “His blood be on us and on our children (Matthew 27:25).”
At first the Holy Father analyses the elements that made up the crowd baying for Jesus’ blood: these are not the ‘Jewish people’ as such, but the dominant priestly circle and the followers of Barabbas.

Then, in an illuminating passage, the Pope reminds us that “the Christian will remember that Jesus’ blood speaks a different language from the blood of Abel; it does not cry out for vengeance and punishment; it brings reconciliation.” He emphasises that, “read in the light of faith, it means that we all stand in need of the purifying power of love, which is his blood. These words are not a curse, but rather redemption, salvation.”

This interpretation makes it clear there is no room for anti-Semitism in the Church. This makes me ask the question: “Why is it that among certain right-wing (I hate that expression when used in the context of the Church, but it can be useful) Catholics, those who attend the Tridentine Mass, there is anti-Semitism?”

I have encountered it myself: the odd remark that makes you sit up and wonder where that person is coming from; ‘under the counter’ literature with disturbing phrases and attitudes. When I referred to The Remnant in my blog for April 14, a friend warned me against giving this publication publicity as he had encountered an anti-Semitic strain in some of its articles.

Further to this, a good friend of mine, who is herself a convert from Judaism and who always attends the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, tells me she is sometimes very distressed by the blatantly anti-Semitic remarks she hears from fellow EF worshippers when socialising after Mass. I once put this question to a Francophile acquaintance, who replied that in France the far Right in politics has always been closely linked with the Lefebvrist wing of the Church there. And then there is the case of the schismatic Bishop Williamson and his now notorious views about the Holocaust: clearly, there are too many instances for this to be a random feature.

We have just celebrated Good Friday when, in the Novus Ordo, the general intercessions ask us to “pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God.” The same prayer in my old Roman Missal has the Latin: “Oremus et pro perfidis Judaeis…”, translated as “Let us pray also for the unbelieving Jews…” Is this part of the problem?

When the late John Paul II (of soon-to-be blessed memory) referred to the Jews as “our older brothers”, I warmed to the phrase. I have a private syllogism which runs, “Jesus was a Jew. I follow Jesus. Therefore I am a Jew.”

This is, of course, factual and well as logical nonsense, as I am actually a Celt, descended from a long and noble line of Irish peasants, but you get my drift: how can we Christians, who profess to follow Christ, have any truck with any kind of anti-Semitism?

Pope Benedict concludes on page 187 with the words, “Only when understood in terms of the theology of the Last Supper and the Cross, drawn from the whole of the New Testament, does this verse from Matthew’s Gospel take on its correct meaning.”

It is always interesting to observe the results of information offered, and to note that many contributors cannot or will not read what is written, or do further research on the material offered. Of course, I realise that nothing of what I have written ought to be accepted on face value – it is up to an individual to consider, accept or reject.

Personally, I place little value in the comments of people who lack the courage to write under their given names – it just seems to me to be useless babble.

To answer a couple of questions or observations (and if one were to venture to my home page at http://jloughnan.tripod.com/index.htm ) they would observe that I am, indeed, NOT a priest, but a (now) 76 year old very happily married layman (my wife being: Norma).

Why would I remain in the SSPX for 23 years? Good question.

Answer: When I first adhered to the Society it was the year 1974 – the new Order of Mass being promulgated in 1969. Of course, my over-riding preference was for the Rite of St Pius V (as amended several times!)

Archbishop Lefebvre was still a Bishop in “good standing” with the Catholic Church – and remained so until his excommunication. Living under the auspices of the SSPX was akin to living in a cult situation. It took a long time to orgainse my facts; to realise that action had to be taken to extract ourselves from their influence. I also had to convince my wife that being out of communion with Rome and our local bishop was not how Our Lord wanted us to be living.

Here follows an extract from Pete Vere’s A CANONICAL HISTORY OF THE LEFEBVRITE SCHISM
Quote:

1.4 THE SUSPENSION A DIVINIS OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE
After the illicit ordination of seminarians to major orders, the censures imposed upon Archbishop Lefebvre would not end with suspension ab ordinum collatione. For at the same press conference confirming Lefebvre’s suspension ab ordinum collatione, Fr. Panciroli also announced the following:

The Holy See is examining the special case of formal disobedience of Mgr. Lefebvre to the instructions of the Holy Father who, by the documents of 12 and 25 June 1976, expressly forbade him to proceed with the ordinations.(65)

In announcing the examination of a case of formal disobedience against Archbishop Lefebvre, it becomes obvious that the Holy See was concerned about the direction Lefebvre was leading the SSPX. In less than a week after being suspended ab ordinum collatione, Lefebvre received a formal canonical warning from Cardinal Baggio, the Prefect of Sacred Congregation of Bishops. After restating the actions which led to Lefebvre’s suspension ab ordinum collatione, Cardinal Baggio warns as follows within the monition:
If, however, the invitation [to repair the scandal caused by the illicit ordinations] were to prove vain, and if a proof of recognition of error did not arrive at this Congregation within ten days of your receipt of my letter, you must know that, basing itself on a special mandate of the Sovereign Pontiff, it will be the duty of this Congregation to proceed against you by inflicting the necessary penalties, in conformity with [c*.] 2331, para. 1.(66)

On July 11, 1976, Archbishop Lefebvre received the monition, signing “a certificate of reception as evidence of this fact.”(67) In accordance with c*. 2331 §1, because of his act of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff, Archbishop Lefebvre was now receiving a formal canonical warning that he would have further censures imposed upon him unless he took immediate steps to repair the scandal he had caused. As Woywod explains in his commentary on c*. 2331 §1, “Persons who stubbornly refuse to obey the legitimate precepts or prohibitions of the Roman Pontiff or their proper Ordinary shall be punished with appropriate penalties, not excluding censures, in proportion to the gravity of their guilt.”(68)

While Lefebvre and his followers would apply many of their previous canonical arguments in questioning the validity of the monition as well as the ensuing suspension a divinis, having previously refuted these same arguments, the present author will not repeat his rebuttals a second time. It is sufficient to mention that Lefebvre was not deterred from his course of disobedience by the threat of further censures; he had begun to solidify in his rejection of the Second Vatican Council which he believed to be destroying the Church, as noted in his following response to Paul VI regarding the monition:

Let Your Holiness abandon that ill-omened undertaking of compromise with the ideas of modern man, an undertaking which originates in a secret understanding between high dignitaries in the Church and those of Masonic lodges, since before the Council… To persevere in that direction is to pursue the destruction of the Church. Your Holiness will easily understand that we cannot collaborate in so calamitous a purpose, which we should do were we to close our seminaries.(69)

Needless to say, this was neither the retraction nor the act of obedience from Lefebvre that the Holy See had hoped for as a result of the monition. At best, Archbishop Lefebvre now accused Pope Paul VI of unintentionally collaborating with freemasonry in order to destroy the Church. It was also evident that Lefebvre would not submit to the authority of the Roman Pontiff. In light of Lefebvre’s obstinacy, the Sacred Congregation for Bishops further imposed the sanction of suspension a divinis upon Lefebvre on July 22, 1976, within the following notification:

The Holy Father has informed me that he has received from you a letter dated 17 July. In his eyes, it could not unhappily be considered satisfactory — on the contrary. I may even tell you that he is very distressed by the attitude to him shown in that document… In consequence the Sovereign Pontiff Paul VI, on 22 July 1976, in conformity with [c*.] 2227, in virtue of which the penalties that can be applied to a bishop are expressly reserved to him, has inflicted on you suspension a divinis provided for in [c*.] 2279, §2, 2o, and has ordered that it take immediate effect.(70)

Having found both Lefebvre’s behavior and his refusal to repair the scandal he had caused unacceptable, the Holy Father suspended Lefebvre a divinis according to the norms of cc*. 2227 and 2279 §2, 2o. As Woywod explains, “Suspension a divinis forbids the exercise of every act of the power of orders which one obtained either by sacred orders or by privilege.”(71) Thus Lefebvre was now forbidden by the Holy See from the exercise of holy orders, a prohibition reserved to the Holy Father personally. In other words, his suspension was now perpetual until its absolution, and applicable to more than simply the ordination of seminarians to major orders.

Therefore, one must conclude that the main SSPX arguments against both the validity and liceity of their canonical suppression, as well as the arguments they propose against the validity and liceity of the censures incurred by Archbishop Lefebvre, cannot be sustained in light of the canonical jurisprudence in force during the period of time in which these actions occurred.

Unquote.

To quote “Cardinal Hoyos” against the juridicial act of the pope is ambitious – say the least! As a matter of fact – his surname is NOT Hoyos – but Castrillion Hoyos – if only one word is to be used to describe him it is Castrillion. He is a Spaniard, and the custom is not the same as the English.

The good cardinal is a very nice person – but, he does NOT possess the power or jurisdiction of the pope – however much his diplomatic words may please one! He is, in fact, a diplomat – with a charge to attempt the reconciliation of the SSPX bishops, priests and laity. Thus, he uses “honey words” in his efforts.

These, however, do not change objective facts: that, while the excommunicated Bishops have had their personal excommunications lifted in an effort to foster reconciliation – the excommunication “for the crime of schism” has NOT been lifted from Archbishop Lefebvre – and, the original suspensions a divinis of the mid 1970 ALSO has never been repealed – except that upon SSPX priests and associated Orders who have reconciled.

More explicit explanations and information is contained in the file: “Cheat Steet” on the Society of St Pius X
and Other “Integrists.”

I close by saying that – to this very day – my six best friends are still adherents to the SSPX, and I love them dearly and am in frequent contact with them.

Finally, you are fully at liberty to not read my files, but – what if I an right? My files contain the Truth, as much of the Whole Truth that I have been able to garner, and nothing but the Truth.

It is a situation much like that of Protestants: to paraphrase Cardinal Newman – If you read the facts is to become Catholic. (Of course, he said: To read the Fathers is to become Catholic.)

Be prepared to read the facts – then criticise.

Jeannine

EditorCT,
FYI. Until the perpetrators are captured we will never know definitely who committed these hate crimes. I can tell you this. The Catholic Church & the Mormon Church were the only 2 large, religions that backed the passing of the CA amendment, Proposition 8 in 2008. It was an amendment that states only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.

It is right now going through the judicial process on its validity. Both, the pro-gay & anti-homosexual-marriage groups have been very vocal out there. I guess you can figure out the rest.

DBMcGinnity

Like you, I write under my own name and I have given my e- mail address so that anything that I have written an be challenged or debated. Some of the e-mail responses I received were vile and most unchristian, but the persons did not give their name. One cannot help but be astounded and question the intellect and integrity of the sorts of people who do not have the moral courage to openly stand by their viewpoints but hide behind a pseudonym. I have found your stuff inspiring, and it is wonderful to read the work of an erudite academic, as opposed to ill thought out pious responses of others without too much conviction or credence.

DBMcGinnity

I never said that the Jews accepted the concept of the trinity, To the best of my knowledge, it was Constantine who drummed up this idea of the Trinity at the behest of his mother. Constantine had made Jesus into a God and then discovered that in Christianity there is only one God, so they ‘cooked the books’ and ‘shifted the goalposts’. A wise old Jesuit philosopher taught me that over fifty years ago. I am not a Hebrew scholar; I am a Catholic ecclesiastical scholar from the dire old days of Pius XII. I cannot provide evidence. How can I provide evidence for archaic flummery and nonsense that is without any credence about things that never happened.

I attend the SSPX Mass because I like the ritual and the music. I go to see ‘The Magic Flute’ for the same reason, it is uplifting and I love it. I attend the “Novus Ordo Seclorum” Mass because my friends go there, and it makes them happy, and it make me happy too. As for doctrinal evidence, there isn’t any. If there was any evidence whatsoever of religious credibility, the people would be willing to accept it and would be flocking into the churches, that would be full.

I believe in the Goodness of God that is all around us in all things and all people. I believe the pristine message of Jesus Christ to educate and enable people to cope with life’s events and to alleviate their suffering, and to leave the world a better place than when we entered it. All the rest of the religious rituals with golden vestments and processions etc., is facile, frivolous and absurd, like a colourful circus, or pop concert.

Petrus

There is nothing academic about this “work”. It’s the ramblings of a person with an axe to grind. There’s no information given, only idle gossip and, for want of a better word, bitching!

As for this, “not having the couraage to write under their real name” nonsense, it is accepted blogging etiquette to use a username. “placing little value” in their comments, is really a cover-up for being blown out of the water. If you dislike bloggers using usernames, then don’t come on to blogs to promote your own nasty writing

Anonymous

Mr Loughnan,

First to get some silliness (with respect) out of the way – I didn’t invent the convention of usernames for blogging. I’d have no problem using my baptismal and surname, but I tend to go with the flow in unimportant matters. I take it, though, that you wouldn’t dream of reading the writings of any of the great writers who used pseudonyms, among them Lewis Carroll aka Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson? What difference does it make what names are used, as long as what is said is true?

You clearly doubt that Archbishop Lefebvre had good reason to do what he did, believing the Church to be in a state of crisis (note Canon Law makes this belief – – whether true or false — the exception to all penalties.) And from my rather hasty reading of your post (I’ve been out all day and up to my eyes, so will, I promise you, read it more carefully later – this is simply a quick response to a few remarks that stood out for me) – from my quick reading just now, you appear to dismiss the Masonic influence in the Church. No so St Padre Pio – http://romancatholicheroes.blogspot.com/ Please make sure you click on the link to the book written by Father Luigi Villa. Dynamite.

Two more things: nothing I’ve read so far in your criticisms of the SSPX (or any other criticisms) is anything more than personal criticisms of individual priests, stories about their failings etc. Please do not think that I am of the opinion that SSPX priests are perfect. I do not. And they’re not crazy about me, either. Trust me on this. Put it this way: if the SSPX clergy were in charge of filtering a list of future canonisable saints, I’d be out in the first round. But don’t waste your time trying to prove that Archbishop Lefebvre did the wrong thing and caused a schism, because the facts speak otherwise.

I’m so sorry to have caused you distress over my omission of ‘Castrillon’ when I referred to Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos – believe me I am well acquainted with his name, having corresponded with him and having written his name in articles many times. I do tend to abbreviate it to Cardinal Hoyos, just because I’m a lazy lassie at times. However, you can’t be expected to know that I know that, so thank you for your charitable correction of what you perceived to be a mistake on my part. God bless you.

Where you are wrong about Cardinal Darios Castrillon Hoyos, however, is in the level of his authority to speak on SSPX matters. Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, was President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, when, under instructions from the Pope, he approached the SSPX bishops during their Jubilee pilgrimage and told them that the Pope was prepared to grant them either a personal prelature , same as Opus Dei or an apostolic administration akin to the traditionalist priests of Campos, Brazil. The Cardinal was appointed by the Pope to meet with the SSPX and he most certainly could not have said over and over again that there was no “schism” merely an “irregular situation “ were that not the case.

There is no schism where there is no break with the Pope’s legitimate authority. Note “legitimate”. Where the Pope poses a danger to our physical or spiritual wellbeing – according to Saint (Cardinal) Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, then we are not only permitted to disobey, but obliged to do so. That doesn’t put anyone in schism. Listen, Mr Loughnan. I have attended novus ordo Masses on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul and heard the Pope castigated by “priests in good standing” – one of them refused to include a bidding prayer for the Pope on one occasion. I think you need to clearly define your terms, starting with “schism” before you accuse anyone, least of all the saintly and heroic Archbishop Lefebvre, of being a schismatic and causing a break with Rome. The only break with Rome that I can see today, has been caused by Modernist bishops and priests.

DBMcGinnity

I feel dutifully admonished by your perspicacity and the sharpness of your chastisement. I am going to bed without any supper, and I will say 27 decades of the Rosary. I feel sure that “The Ivy League” are missing your cultural and intellectual use of prose.

Anonymous

Given your crystal clear statements of disbelief of just about every Catholic doctrine on offer, I am astonished to read that you attend SSPX Masses “because (you) like the ritual and music”

I sincerely hope that you do not approach for Holy Communion.

AJ

Our current Holy Father has removed the sentence of excommunication from the four bishops still living however, he did not retroactively declare null all of the excommunications, he said that he is showing clemency ( A FACT) , with the hope that they will return to full communion. The “schism” has been healed partially on the part of the Holy See out of their clemency, however the lack of full communion still exists as SSPX priests still deny obedience to the Holy Father and bishops in communion with them.

Schism has many forms being “active” and “passive” but basically it is the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity with the Church’s Authority. And one of its many heads is the denial and disobedience to the Authority of the pope with the Bishops in Communion with him. (Magisterium of the Church). Even Bishop Bernard Fellay admitted there won’t be any agreement between him and the Church. He won’t budge in his demands and won’t submit to the recognized Magisterial Authority of the Church. So even the Church didn’t declared him a schismatic (out of clemency) by definition of the term, he is in fact in the state of schism from the Church in his heart. Odd that you insist on saying that they are not.

Are you also aware of canon Law Canon 1013 states, “No Bishop is permitted to consecrate anyone as Bishop, unless it is first established that a pontifical mandate has been issued.” The meaning of this canon is self-evident, in that a bishop needs permission from the Holy See before consecrating another to the episcopate. The penalty for one who violates this canon is also clearly stated in the Code of Canon Law as follows: Canon 1383 “Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae [automatic] excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.” As one can see, the penalty of excommunication for one who violates the aforementioned canon is automatic, and can only be removed by the Apostolic See (can. 1355).

AJ

Did you hear about traditionalist groups who consider SSPX too liberal and thus split from SSPX? TOO LIBERAL! Here they are:

Society of St. Pius V — In 1983, nine U.S. SSPX priests broke with or were forced to leave the SSPX’s Northeast USA District partly because they were opposed to Lefebvre’s instructions that Mass be celebrated according to the 1962 edition of the Roman Missal issued by Pope John XXIII. Other issues occasioning the split were: Lefebvre’s order that Society priests must accept the decrees of nullity handed down by diocesan marriage tribunals; the acceptance of new members into the group who had been ordained to the priesthood according to the revised sacramental rites of Pope Paul VI.[34] The nine priests went on to form the Society of Society of St. Pius V.

Istituto Mater Boni Consilii (Italian for “Institute of the Mother of Good Counsel”) is a traditionalist congregation of priests that follows the Sedeprivationist school of thought. The founders of the institute seceded in 1985 from the Society of St. Pius X under the leadership of Fr. Francesco Ricossa, onetime faculty member of the seminary at Econe. In contrast to the North American-based SSPV, this Institute is based in Europe
.
2. Did you hear about traditionalists who have broken with the SSPX and reconciled with Rome?

Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter — The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter was established in 1988 after the Ecône consecrations. Responding to the Holy See’s declaration that these constituted a schismatic act and that those involved were thereby automatically excommunicated, twelve priests left the Society and established the Fraternity, in full communion with the Holy See.

Personal Apostolic Administration of Saint John Mary Vianney

Institute of the Good Shepherd — The Institute of the Good Shepherd (Institut du Bon-Pasteur, IBP) was established as a papally recognised society of apostolic life on 8 September 2006 for a group of SSPX members who maintained it was time for the Society to accept reconciliation with Pope Benedict XVI.
The Sons of the Most Holy Redeemer joined the Holy See in June 2008.

You see every abiding Catholic can be a true Traditionalist without the SSPX. We don’t need the SSPX to be a Traditionalists. What we can see clearly is SSPX is undergoing what the protestant sects are undergoing during 500 years after the Reformation…..split from split from split.

AJ

EditorCt and Petrus,

Noticed your objections, criticism and indignation on the Catholic Church headed by JPII and now Pope BenedictXVI. Your self-emulation and self-pride blinded both of you and SSPX to see the Truth. All you see is we are right with Sacred Tradition and the Pope with Bishops in communion with him (Magisterial Authority) is wrong.

Don’t you ever ask yourselves, WHO is the right entity to interpret Scripture and Sacred Tradition?

Choose one:

1. Me/SSPX/Other RadTrads
2. Magisterium of the Catholic Church (I suppose you know who compose the Magisterium)

Maybe instead of warning us about the eternal danger they (RadTrads-SSPX) thinks our (soon to be beatified) Popes pose to our salvation, they would better spend their time seriously meditating and reflecting upon the state of his own mind and soul. And maybe you would better spend your time seriously considering what kind of effect promoting this kind of trash is having on your own mind and soul – not to mention the minds and souls of those who read it.

Maybe then, after removing the logs from both of your eyes, you’ll both eventually be able to see that the opposition and criticism Radtrad receives has nothing to do with being a prophet like Jeremiah and everything to do with their outrageously reckless and hostile behavior. Maybe then, you’ll both be able to see more clearly so as to actually help the Church rather than being a source of misinformation, disunity, and discord.

P.S. Another case of typical conspiracy-theorist claptrap seems to be RadTrad’s accusation about John Paul II supposedly refusing to take the “papal oath” and his “Universalism.”

AJ

Don’t worry I think Torkay is on the same boat as you….RadTrads!

AJ

The authority of the Church HAS passed judgment on the SSPX. John Paul II excommunicated Lefevre and five others for participating in an unsanctioned episcopal ordination in direct contradiciton to Church law. All priests associated with the SSPX were then denied faculties to exercise their ministries, a command they chose to disobey. By this they were schismatic.

Our current Holy Father has removed the sentence of excommunication from the four bishops still living (he did not retroactively declare null all of the excommunications, he said that he is showing clemency), with the hope that they will return to full communion. The “schism” has been healed partially on the part of the Holy See out of their clemency, however the lack of full communion still exists as SSPX priests still deny obedience to the Holy Father and bishops in communion with them, and hence their actions are scandalous to the faithful, who deserve clergy who practice what they preach.

The organization in itself has never been declared heretical, but just because something is not heretical does not mean it is good. The SSPX remains Catholic — as does a pro-choice Catholic politican. That does not mean we should endorse pro-choice Catholic politicians. In fact, we should not. Even though no pro- gay politician and pro-choice politican has been formally declared heretics, by their actions they disobey the Church. Likewise, the SSPX disobeys the Church.

There are tradtionalist groups who have split from SSPX as being too liberal and there are those split and choose to have full communion with the See of Rome!!! They (SSPX) are experiencing what the protestants since the Reformation have been experiencing….split from split from split. The only difference between you and the Sede is the latter doesn’t recognize the current legitimate Pope. That’s it.

The question is, why would anyone risk their soul by dabbling in a society that is in an irregular state with Rome to begin with?

AJ

Arrogance at high! How do one distinguish between “screwballs” inside the SSPX? As long as one “agrees” with the standard of interpretation of SSPX’s magisterial authority, one is deemed to be faithful however, if one happen to disagree, then they call you a screwball.

AJ

May God have mercy on you guys smearing a priest of the Catholic Chrurch. Even amongst those who hold him and his religion in contempt he still affords the respect and dignity of being who he is… persona Christi!

AJ

Before you say anything stupid, please read my post above and post below by the same guy you demean about the FACTS on SSPX.

You are just in denial syndrome.

F. John Loughnan

Thank you for your answer. Earlier you specifically declared:

Quote: NOT QUITE TRUE
BARABBAS=
BAR= Son of
ABBAS The Father

BARABBAS was the son of the father (The son of God) and he was released by Pilate, the Bible says so. End Quote.

Thus suggesting – if you accept that the Father and the Son are God – that you may accept the concept of the Trinity as evidence of Barrabas’ name (as you claim!. On the other hand, if you do not accept that there is a Trinitarian God (or, perhaps, ANY God) , then is this an indication that you are an atheist? Just trying to see from where you are coming – in view of your claim to have received an ecclesial education and to be a scholar.

But, IF – as you claim – Barabbas was the Son of the Father – such a name would have been given PRIOR to Jesus exercising His ministry – and, the concept of Father /God was NOT a part of Jewish custom – was it? So, HOW could the boy Barabbas be called “son of God”? Is this not illogical?

Now you say:
Quote: I never said that the Jews accepted the concept of the trinty, To the best of my knowledge, it was Constantine who drummed up this idea of the Trinity at the behest of his mother. Constantine had made Jesus into a God and then discovered that in Christianity there is only one God, so they ‘cooked the books’ and ‘shifted the goalposts’. End quote.

Question: If that is the BEST of your knowledge – would you please advise the source of that knowledge? To the best of my knowledge: no Trinitarian Christian would make such a claim…perhaps a non-Christian, like a Mormon, might? No-one who is non-Trinitarian can lay validly claim to being a Christian – much less to being a Catholic. If you are such a person, you may attend a Catholic Mass (be it main-stream Catholic or SSPX), but you must NOT receive the Eucharist – for you would be guilty of 1 Cor. 11: 27 “Wherefore whosoever shall eat the bread or drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord…”

However, the Bible points to:

Matt. 6:9-14 Pray then like this: Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come.

Matt. 28:19 Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit:..

Luke 1:21 In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and understanding, and didst reveal them unto babes: yea, Father; for so it was well-pleasing in thy sight…

Luke 11:13 If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?..

Please note that the above are quotes from Our Lord, Jesus Christ’s own mouth regarding the other two Persons in the Trinity – the Father and the Holy Spirit; He, of course, being the second Person – the Son.

See also Acts 2:33 Being therefore by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he hath poured forth this, which ye see and hear…

This, friend DBMcGinnity IS evidence – unless you doubt the veracity of the Bible? In which case… what can one say?

Finally, re the “Son of the Father” bit equating to Barrabas being “The Son of God” – did you know that the Muslim word for God (Allah) is the same word used by the Catholic Maronites?

Quote: “Although the name “Allah” is most commonly associated with Islam, it was also used in pre-Islamic times.

The father of Muhammad, Islam’s prophet, had the name “Abdullah”; which translates to servant of Allah.

The Arab Jews referred to God as Allah, and the Hebrew form of this name, El or Eloh, was used as an Old Testament synonym for Yahweh.

The Aramaic word for God is also “Allah”, therefore it is believed that Jesus Christ also used this word in his teachings. ” End Quote.

Therefore, by YOUR reasoning, it ought to be

Son of God = Barallah, or Barullah!!!

Professor Julius Sumner Miller might have said: “Why is it not so?”

AJ

You are trying to parrot our good Cardinal Hoyos on what he said about SSPX but you failed to mention the reaction of SSPX to that meeting….. The SSPX leadership responded with distrust, saying that Castrillón was vague on how the new structure would be implemented and sustained, and criticising the Holy See’s allegedly heavy-handed treatment of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter.

You said, “There is no schism where there is no break with the Pope’s legitimate authority….least of all the saintly and heroic Archbishop Lefebvre”.

Sad it may be but Bishop Lefebvre is still in ex-communication and our current Holy Father has removed the sentence of excommunication from the four bishops still living (he did not retroactively declare null all of the excommunications, he said that he is showing CLEMENCY), with the hope that they will return to full communion however the lack of full communion still exists as SSPX priests still deny obedience to the Holy Father and bishops in communion with them, and hence their actions are scandalous to the faithful, who deserve clergy who practice what they preach.

All priests associated with the SSPX were then denied faculties to exercise their ministries, a command they chose to disobey.

F. John Loughnan

Petrus,

Your reaction is natural for an SSPXer – which I once was. Unfortunately, what I offer is NOT hearsay… I am able to back up whatever I say. On the other hand, all that you offer is allegation, allegation, allegation. You are not even able to discern the difference between “F.” and “Fr.” – assuming that the “F.” in my name means that I claim to be a priest. The facts are that ir is the abbeviation of my first name “Francis” – which I am never known by.

If there were “clearly…some screwballs within the SSPX” what is to say that there remain “screwballs” with similar traits still in the SSPX? And what is to say that, at least, some of those who quit the SSPX were NOT screwballs? Do you know that, of all the first SSPX seminarians who were ordaided by Lefebvre – back in the 1970’s – only ONE remains within the SSPX. Why, do you think that is so? Because they were “screwballs?”

No. It was because they KNEW that the SSPX was NOT the solution to the problem, and most of them reverted to Holy Mother Church – just like the Priests of Campos.

Unfortunately for the facts of the matter” there WERE other groups who were continuing with the Latin Mass, who were still in full communion with Rome.

The expression “not in full communion” which is applied to the SSPX is a diplomatic way of avoiding the more commonly used phrase “schismatic”. It sounds better, is less offensive – but means the same thing.

All things to the contrary notwithstanding.

AJ

For the first time I agree with you EditorCT, that it’s not just the music and ritual of TM but the TM itself…IS THE ONLY good thing that comes out of RadTrad. That’s it. Period. ALL their articles, spoofs, prophesies linking and mocking the Pope and the Church are PURE GARBAGE, JUST PLAIN RUBBISH.

For a Traditionalist (not ALL) they hide and pretend to be your friend and take the good stuff out of you. They know the gravity of Jesus’ Words on the given Authority to the Pope and the Church of the power to EX-Communicate (anathema) , so they try in paper to claim loyal fidelity and love to the Pope and the Church so to remove the decree (out of Clemency) BUT at the time stab the Pope and Bishops in communion with him behind their backs. They only want the good stuff but stay the same arrogant and recalcitrant core.

Rad-Trads are single issue campaigners which is why defending JPII or any post Vatican II Pope is pointless because it is not really where they are coming from. Catholics are right not to engage with Rad-Trads because they cannot be satisfied on their own terms. Of course, they are not supposed to be satisfied by their own terms but that means changing the terms of the debate from liturgy and ‘reverence’ TO more fundamental issues of obedience, humility and faith… which never happens.

Eventually this discussion will reach the point of “JPII was a liberal who broke with Catholic Tradition and, thus, it’s proof, proof, I say that the smoke of Satan has entered the Church and Satan has brought us the Pauline rite by him and men like him!” To them the only solution will be a return to the Tridentine.

They hold that any Pope that does not restore the Tridentine as the world standard is going to be a hopeless liberal. Conversely, any Pope that did restore the Tridentine, no matter that he beatified Karl Marx, would be lauded as the saviour of the Church.

AJ

I’m deeply happy for you however keep searching and prating for thr Truth. If you noticed most of your assertions are: I KNOW, I FEEL ..that may eventually eclipse the NONSENSE that has overtaken chrit’s Church..”

That is just attesting according to who “agrees” with ME version and whoever disagree with me version is considered nonsense and demonic. WHO are you anyways with such machismo authority?I forgot you are from the leprechaun branch of the Radtrads.

If you have the time please enlighten us to this “nonsense” you are talking about or it more of a “complaint” again of another RadTrad.

AJ

It should be “praying” for the Truth.

F. John Loughnan

Irene,

Without knowing it, you are absolutely correct about my name – it ought to ne “Loughnane”! When my Great grandfather arrived in Geelong, Australia in 1854, his name was, in fact, Loughnane. However, after a trip to the Gold fields at Ballarat, he and a brother built two hotels, in Geelong, the harp of Erin and the Telegraph. Wheh the signwriter came to write the name on the shingle – it was too short to accomodate the last letter in the name. Hence, thereafter, our name became Loughnan. In Gaelic, our name is Ó Lachtnáin – by which I am known at Sean Lachtnáin’s Home Page.

Here is a part of the following file:

CORRESPONDENCE TO AND FROM ROME
ON THE STATUS OF
THE SOCIETY OF ST PIUS X (SSPX)

——————————————————————————–
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger August 20, 1998
Prefect, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Vatican City EUROPE

Your Eminence,

On July 2, 1988, in his Apostolic Letter Ecclesia Dei, His Holiness Pope John Paul II forthrightly stated that “Archbishop Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law”, and that “formal adherence to the schism is a grave offence against God and carries the penalty of excommunication decreed by the Church’s law.”

On March 22, 1996, Bishop Bruskewitz (Diocese of Lincoln, USA) included the SSPX in twelve organisations, including such groups as Call to Action, Catholics for a Free Choice, Planned Parenthood and the Freemasons, “whose beliefs and practices are perilous to or incompatible with the Catholic Faith.”

Since 1988 the Society of St Pius X and its supporters have maintained that they are NOT in schism, and
that the bishops named by the Pope are NOT excommunicated, nor are the priests nor faithful who adhere to the SSPX, and that the SSPX is in communion with Rome.

Fr Brian Harrison O.S., described arguments by “members and supporters of the Society of St Pius X” (relative to the SSPX denial that Archbishop Lefebvre did, in fact, attach his signature to Dignitatis Humanae and Gaudium et Spes) as “resort(ing) to (using) the most convoluted hermeneutical acrobatics and bizarre conspiracy theories.”

“Letters to Friends and Benefactors” in Australia by the Australian SSPX Superior and his Seminary Rector deny the validity of canonical sanctions and claim that not only are the Catholic faithful free to attend Society Masses – they are specifically NOT entitled to attend Novus Ordo Masses – such “masses” being NOT Catholic and the saying of which by a SSPX priest (and, presumably, diocesan priests) would involve mortal sin!

After twenty odd years of adherence to the traditional Mass, for the last several years I have been attempting to moderate the statements and actions of some of the Australian SSPX priests – to no avail. On January 5, 1998 I sent a 136 page document entitled My Reasons For Withdrawing From The Society Of St Pius X to Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the SSPX, and a copy of it to Archbishop George Pell, Archdiocese of Melbourne. I enclose the first six pages of that document, together with copies of documents by Australian priests of the SSPX for evaluation.

Some questions arise:

Was the declaration of Pope John Paul in Ecclesia Dei as to who was NOT in communion with him then legislatively authoritative, binding and now still in effect? That is are Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta current excommunicates?

What is the status of all the priests, seminarians and “those who adhere” to the SSPX?

What does “adherence” constitute?

Does the SSPX constitute a group “whose beliefs and practices are perilous to or incompatible with the Catholic Faith”?

Do the unilateral assertions by the SSPX as to “union with Rome” make it so, or is the Pope who decides who is in communion with him?

How close to “Feeneyism” is the SSPX?

How authoritative is your response?

Would a response to the above fall within the competence of the Pontifical Council for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts? If so, would that response be infallible?

May your response (or any other response) be made public knowledge – particularly adherents of the SSPX?

Postscript: While I have been putting this together I received a phone call from a very good SSPX friend, Rita Freriks, whose husband has altzheimers and is currently in a home. Now I can post this reply.

F. John Loughnan

EditorCT

Are you surprised that sedevacantists also attend SSPX Masses?

Wouls you be surprised to know that a valid priest can (and has) said a valid Mass by simply using a crumb of bread and a drop of wine, and saying: “This is My Blood” and “This is My Body” – all in the space of a few seconds? Extreme? Yes. But valid.

Would you also be surprised at another extreme example: That a validly ordained priest (who secretly, is also a satanist) can also say the Ordinary OR Extra Ordinary Rite of Mass with or without parishioners, and – providing that he used the proper consecratory form, used the correct matter, and, at least had the residual intention required by the Church – he would perform a valid, but illicit Mass and that the parishioners would receive the Body and Blood of the Lord, and the appropriate graces? Of course, the priest would sin greviously by so doing.

So too can parishioners receive the Lord and the Graces at SSPX Masses (in grave circumstances) – but, of course, Rome does NOT encourage persons to do so – unless there is grave necessity. As with the satanic priest, SSPX priests are under the suspension a divinis from performing all priestly offices and thereby objectively sin in doing so.

F. John Loughnan

Cardinal Castillion Hoyos is a nice bloke and a good diplomat – and all that, but is private opinions are simply that – private opinions. They are nothing as good as those of the reigning pope’s official documents or of his predecessors.

Cardinal Schonborn has expressed private opinions regarding the veracity of Medjugorje. They are just as valuable as the opinions of al Castillion Hoyos! They do not measure up to the declarations of the Apostle of Mostar – the Bishop, who possesses the charism of discernment on private revelation, and of the vatican or it’s proxy.

F. John Loughnan

Charles,

Didn’t you have published “Mikhail Gorbachev the False Prophet?” by Instauratio Press, Gladysvale, Vic. back in 1992?

Do you still hold the same opinion?

Deut 18:22 says that if a prophet’s words do not come true, then they are a false prophet.

What WAS Gorbachev’s prophecy?

F. John Loughnan

HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF From the past: posted at
[Trad-X] Of Lefebvrite interest
From: tradx@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Rooster Cogburn (clearcreek@talk21.com)
Monday, 10 March 2008 6:20:02 PMtradx@yahoogroups.com

Catholic Herald
Leading article
Relates to Lefebvrists face crisis as bishop is exposed as `dangerous’ anti-Semite
5 March 2008

We at The Catholic Herald have known for some time that Richard Williamson, one of the four SSPX bishops ordained by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in 1988, is an anti-Semite. But we have waited until now to expose the full viciousness of his views because it seemed possible that respectable members of the Society would be reconciled with the Holy See, and that Williamson et al would depart for their own schismatic denomination.

That has not happened. There have been negotiations between the Vatican and Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior-General of the Society of St Pius X, following the Holy Father’s liberation of the classical Mass last year. They have yet to bear fruit. This lack of progress is depressing, though understandable, given the complexity of the theological and juridical issues involved. What is not understandable is the refusal of the SSPX to condemn Bishop Williamson when the Herald confronted it with his statements this week. The SSPX, according to the general secretary of its headquarters in Switzerland, “has no duty or ability to make a
pronouncement” on the authenticity of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The Protocols are a century-old forgery that is consistently cited by neo-Nazis to justify the Holocaust. Adolf Hitler believed in their authenticity; so does Osama bin Laden. For the SSPX to refuse to comment on the authenticity of the forgery that one of its founders is propagating casts doubt on the good faith of the entire
organisation. Is the Society also neutral on Williamson’s claims that 9/11 was the product of a Jewish-dominated world conspiracy?

What we can say is that, for years, this bishop has been spreading anti-Semitic lies and the SSPX has failed to expel him from its ranks.

Many devout Catholics, deprived of access to the traditional liturgy by intolerant bishops, worship at Lefebvrist churches; in parts of France, SSPX Masses have been the only alternative to wildly self-indulgent liberal services that are scarcely recognisable as Catholic. But Pope Benedict XVI has brought the old Missal back into
the mainstream of Catholic worship and, God willing, various bishops will soon abandon their efforts to block his reforms. Communities of traditionalist priests loyal to the Holy See are flourishing (and they would flourish in England and Wales, too, if only they were given the opportunity).

Let us repeat what we said last week: there is really no excuse to continue to belong to the Society of St Pius X. Bishop Fellay’s failure to condemn Bishop Williamson has brought shame on his organisation. It is time for moderate Lefebvrists to return to the Church – and for us to welcome them joyfully.

Catholic Herald
Lefebvrists face crisis as bishop is exposed as `dangerous’ anti-Semite SSPX refuses to distance itself from prelate who accuses Jews of doing work of the Anti-Christ
By Anna Arco
5 March 2008

A senior bishop of the Lefebvrist Society of St Pius X (SSPX) has endorsed the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a notorious anti-Semitic forgery that enjoys widespread currency in neo-Nazi circles.

Richard Williamson, one of four bishops ordained by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, told The Catholic Herald that the document – which supposedly reveals a Jewish plot to dominate the world – was authentic.

He is also on record as saying that the Jews are fighting for world domination “to prepare the Anti-Christ’s throne in Jerusalem”. The SSPX has refused to condemn English-born Bishop Williamson and says it has “no policy” on the authenticity of the Protocols, a Russian Czarist forgery that has been described as “a manual in Hitler’s war to exterminate the Jews”.

The Society’s support for Williamson – who also believes that the Americans planned 9/11 – is likely to end any chance of full reconciliation between the SSPX and Rome.

The Simon Wiesenthal Centre, a Jewish human rights organisation, said this week that it is planning to take action against Williamson.

Dr Shimon Samuels, the centre’s director of international relations, described Williamson as “the Borat of the schismatic Catholic far-Right” and said that he was “a clown, but a dangerous clown”.

Williamson, 67, who was excommunicated along with Archbishop Lefebvre and now runs an SSPX seminary in Argentina, is a cult figure among ultra-Right seminarians. Some of his former students have posted video tributes to him on YouTube, in which he expounds his conspiracy theories.

In 2000 Williamson endorsed the Protocols on an official SSPX website. He wrote: “God put into men’s hands the Protocols of the Sages of Sion… if men want to know the truth, but few do.”

The SSPX’s support for Williamson comes at a time when Pope Benedict has extended an olive branch to the breakaway traditionalists in the form of a liberalisation of the pre-Vatican II traditional form of the Mass.

Bizarrely, Williamson last week implied that the Pope was an anti-Semite because of the Pontiff’s changes to the 1962 version of the Good Friday Prayer.

In an interview with the Herald, Williamson said that he himself was not an anti-Semite, but didn’t like “adversaries of Our Lord Jesus Christ”.

He said: “If Jews are adversaries of Our Lord Jesus Christ – obviously not all of them, but those that are – then I don’t like them.

“My definition of anti-Semitism is to be against every single Jew purely because he’s a Jew. That’s not at all my case. I once had a Jewish rabbi come and speak to seminarians. Does that sound to you like anti-Semitism?”

Although Williamson’s anti-Semitism has been an open secret in the traditionalist Catholic world for years, there will be widespread dismay at the willingness of the SSPX headquarters to defend his views.

The Rev Arnaud Sélégny, the general secretary of the SSPX General House in Menzingen, Switzerland, said Bishop Williamson would not prove an “obstacle in any reconciliation with the post-Conciliar Church” and that the Society was “sure to include Mgr Williamson if there was a reconciliation” because “everyone is allowed to have his opinion in the Society”.

He also said that the Society did not have a policy on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and that “the Society has no duty or ability to make a pronouncement” on the document’s authenticity.

According to Fr Sélégny, reconciliation with Rome “as it is” is unlikely but he hoped that “one day Rome would rediscover its Catholic tradition”. Williamson himself suggested that reconciliation between the Church and the Society was impossible, as there were two churches – “the religion of man and the religion of God”.

He told the Herald: “The Second Vatican Council is the religion of man, of man put in the place of God. Deep down what it means is that it’s a new religion, dressed up to look like the Catholic religion, but it’s not the Catholic religion.”

The Society of St Pius X, which was founded by Archbishop Lefebvre, broke with the Church when the archbishop illicitly ordained four bishops in 1988 against Pope John Paul II’s express wishes. The
bishops were excommunicated.

Williamson, who was educated at Winchester and Cambridge, is a former Anglican who became a Catholic in 1971. He was ordained priest at the Lefebvrist seminary at Ecône, Switzerland, in 1976.

He later became rector of the SSPX seminary in Winona, Minnesota. Since 2003 he has been rector of the Seminary of Our Lady Co-Redemptrix in La Reja, Argentina. In a YouTube video, Williamson is filmed arguing that the Twin Towers were not brought down by aeroplanes but by “demolition charges”.

He has also condemned The Sound of Music as an immoral film because it “puts friendliness and fun in the place of authority”.

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion presents a Jewish plot for world domination. The text claimed to be the secret minutes from a meeting of Jewish elders conspiring to take over the world through economic manipulation, controlling the media and stoking religious conflict.

Used by Czarists and the Nazi Party, among others, the Protocols have carved out a huge new readership in the Arab Middle East, according to the US State Department’s Global Anti-Semitism Report.

Sayings of Bishop Williamson

‘In accordance with their false messianic vocation of Jewish world-domination, the Jews are preparing the Anti-Christ’s throne in Jerusalem.’

‘Can you imagine Julie Andrews in The Sound of Music staying with the Captain if the romance went out of their marriage? Would she not divorce him and grab his children to be her toys? All the elements of pornography are there…’

‘This is my diagnosis of the Unabomber. You may say what you like about him as a criminal terrorist, and much of it is true… But he still has a remotely Catholic sense of how technology brutalises man. How Catholic are those technophiles who wallow at ease in their computers? Give me the Unabomber’s seriousness over their
shallowness, any day of the week.’

‘A woman can do a good imitation of handling ideas, but then she will not be thinking properly as a woman. Did this lawyeress check her hairdo before coming into court? If she did, she is a distracted lawyer. If she did not, she is one distorted woman.’

First to get some silliness (with respect) out of the way – I didn’t invent the convention of usernames for blogging. I’d have no problem using my baptismal and surname, but I tend to go with the flow in unimportant matters. I take it, though, that you wouldn’t dream of reading the writings of any of the great writers who used pseudonyms, among them Lewis Carroll aka Rev. Charles Lutwidge Dodgson? What difference does it make what names are used, as long as what is said is true?

• F.J.L. This is practical cowardice! The difference is accountability. Nevertheless, cowards will be accountable to God.

You clearly doubt that Archbishop Lefebvre had good reason to do what he did, believing the Church to be in a state of crisis (note Canon Law makes this belief – – whether true or false — the exception to all penalties.)

• F.J.L. The Pope is both the Law Maker AND the law Interpreter!!!
• Is The Society of St Pius X In Schism? Rome’s Reply Of 27 October 1998 Declares: YES!

“The Pope is the supreme legislator in the Church. In an Apostolic Letter which he issued motu proprio (on his own initiative) he declared that Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law. (Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382)…While the priests of the Society of St. Pius X are validly ordained, they are also suspended a divinis..While it is true that participation in the Mass at the chapels of the Society of St. Pius X does not of itself constitute “formal adherence to the schism”, such adherence can come about over a period of time as one slowly imbibes a schismatic mentality which separates itself from the teaching of the Supreme Pontiff and the entire Catholic Church classically exemplified in A Rome and Econe Handbook…” Mgr Camille Perl.
•
• And from my rather hasty reading of your post (I’ve been out all day and up to my eyes, so will, I promise you, read it more carefully later – this is simply a quick response to a few remarks that stood out for me) – from my quick reading just now, you appear to dismiss the Masonic influence in the Church. No so St Padre Pio – http://romancatholicheroes.blo… Please make sure you click on the link to the book written by Father Luigi Villa. Dynamite.

• F.J.L. Where precisely, do you get the impression that I “appear to dismiss the Masonic influence in the Church”

Two more things: nothing I’ve read so far in your criticisms of the SSPX (or any other criticisms) is anything more than personal criticisms of individual priests, stories about their failings etc. Please do not think that I am of the opinion that SSPX priests are perfect. I do not. And they’re not crazy about me, either. Trust me on this. Put it this way: if the SSPX clergy were in charge of filtering a list of future canonisable saints, I’d be out in the first round. But don’t waste your time trying to prove that Archbishop Lefebvre did the wrong thing and caused a schism, because the facts speak otherwise.

• You have NOT read enough of my writings to attain a full picture of my web-site!!! Trust you? That is akin to trusting a fox!

I’m so sorry to have caused you distress over my omission of ‘Castrillon’ when I referred to Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos – believe me I am well acquainted with his name, having corresponded with him and having written his name in articles many times. I do tend to abbreviate it to Cardinal Hoyos, just because I’m a lazy lassie at times. However, you can’t be expected to know that I know that, so thank you for your charitable correction of what you perceived to be a mistake on my part. God bless you.

Where you are wrong about Cardinal Darios Castrillon Hoyos, however, is in the level of his authority to speak on SSPX matters. Cardinal Darío Castrillón Hoyos, was President of the Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, when, under instructions from the Pope, he approached the SSPX bishops during their Jubilee pilgrimage and told them that the Pope was prepared to grant them either a personal prelature , same as Opus Dei or an apostolic administration akin to the traditionalist priests of Campos, Brazil. The Cardinal was appointed by the Pope to meet with the SSPX and he most certainly could not have said over and over again that there was no “schism” merely an “irregular situation “ were that not the case.

• F.J.L. I also am well aware of his role – which is one from which he will receive little thanks. However, that said: When he expresses an opinion – it is just that. When, and if, he – with the Pope’s authority – issues a formal Document (which may be relied upon by the Church) then, he will be well worth listening to. Of, course, the SSPX treat him with practical contempt.

There is no schism where there is no break with the Pope’s legitimate authority. Note “legitimate”. Where the Pope poses a danger to our physical or spiritual wellbeing – according to Saint (Cardinal) Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, then we are not only permitted to disobey, but obliged to do so. That doesn’t put anyone in schism.

47. That Archbishop Lefebvre “made a noble act of conscience” when he disobeyed papal orders.
More hero-worship, and compromise with schism. How is this distinguishable from the alleged compromise of us so-called “conservatives” with the modernists to our left? We supposedly ally ourselves with modernist heretics (which is untrue), and that (fictional scenario) is abominable in “traditionalist” eyes, yet at the same time they kow-tow, idealize, and practically idolize the formal schismatic Abp. Lefebvre? More hypocrisy; more tunnel-vision; more self-contradiction and equivocation, according to the self-satisfying needs of the moment.

48. That the propriety and permissibility of Archbishop Lefebvre’s actions has been vindicated by canon lawyers.

There is always an appeal to canon lawyers, isn’t there? But this is the whole point. They will contradict each other. The authority of the Church resides in the Magisterium of Pope, Councils, and Bishops. “Traditionalists” disagree on this point. Like the false witnesses against Jesus (Mark 14:55-59), they are divided amongst themselves, and contradict each other – a sure sign of error (and the mark of sectarianism and schism). But in another sense, the same schismatic spirit dominates and rules all of the species of “traditionalism” and creates many affinities and similarities. They are united in their disdain for the Church, after all; the actual Church, warts (and tares) and all (but who in their right mind would ever naively expect it to be perfect on earth?).

49. That conscience has supreme authority over the magisterium of the Church and the infallible papacy.
More Lutheranism. The Catholic, Newmanian view of a properly informed conscience, on the other hand, is that it must be formulated and grounded within the mind and guidance of the Church, and can never be opposed to it, which of course “traditionalist” dissent and disobedience violates right and left, having adopted the Protestant principle of authority (private judgment) and also the modernist principle (arbitrary selectivity). See my paper, Conscience: the Catholic Church’s (and Newman’s) View. “Traditionalists” wrongly disobey the Church (falsely believing that it is in error, when it is not), and accept the faith-destroying notion of defectibility. This is an utter perversion of the Catholic notion of conscience.
Listen, Mr Loughnan. I have attended novus ordo Masses on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul and heard the Pope castigated by “priests in good standing” – one of them refused to include a bidding prayer for the Pope on one occasion. I think you need to clearly define your terms, starting with “schism” before you accuse anyone, least of all the saintly and heroic Archbishop Lefebvre, of being a schismatic and causing a break with Rome. The only break with Rome that I can see today, has been caused by Modernist bishops and priests.

F.J.L. Dave answers:

56. That Pope John Paul II is doing nothing to alleviate the modernist crisis.
We say he is dealing with the problems. It is just not according to the “traditionalist” method and timetable. It is with a long view of history, and wisdom and prudence, and care and concern for the entire flock, of which he is the earthly Shepherd. There are certain things he can do, and some things he cannot do (even God can’t do certain things concerning men, if men in their free will won’t let him). The pope makes judgments and determinations based on rational considerations of the likely response, just as Pius XII did with regard to the Nazi question. “Traditionalists” don’t accuse him of complicity, for not speaking out magisterially, yet they have the unmitigated gall to accuse this pope of implicit complicity with the modernists (if not one himself, as many “traditionalist” believe).

57. That those who came of age after Vatican II have little idea what the Church was like before that time.
One “traditionalist” who levelled this (quite common) charge against me was 46 (whereas I am 41). So at the ripe old age of 9, he was well-acquainted with the pre-conciliar Church, and equipped to authoritatively comment on it with that extraordinary level of experience and wisdom? Seriously, though, this “argument” is every bit as silly and vapid as pro-abortionists saying that men cannot take any position against abortion, since they aren’t women! Or that priests and the pope can’t comment on sexuality because they are celibate. Experience, obviously, isn’t everything. This is why we have books. This is why we learn. As a passionate lover of history myself, I’m glad that most people don’t think that anyone who lived past a particular era is forbidden from expressing an informed opinion about it. On this basis, St. Paul couldn’t even speak about Jesus, since He never met Him before His Resurrection, or experienced the events of His life. St. Luke wasn’t qualified to write his Gospel. I trust that the point is made by now.

F.J.L. Even in the “old days” a priest could be “in good standing” and, yet, a Satanist, possess a concubine, mumble the Mass, etc., etc., etc. DO YOU WANT A MEDAL?

Here is Canon Lawyer, Pete Vere’s take on the matter together with Pope John Paul II’s words – He, of course was not only the Supreme Law Giver but also the Supreme Law Interpreter:

2.2 THE EXCOMMUNICATION AND SCHISM OF ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE
On June 9, 1988, Pope John Paul II replied to Lefebvre’s letter of June 2, exhorting him not to proceed with the illicit consecration of bishops, and reiterating the position of the Holy See as follows:
In the letter you sent me you appear to reject all that was agreed on in the previous conversations, since you clearly manifest your intention to “provide the means yourself to continue your work,” particularly by proceeding shortly and without apostolic mandate to one or several episcopal ordinations, and this in flagrant contradiction not only with the norms of Canon Law, but also with the Protocol signed on May 5th and the directions relevant to this problem contained in the letter which Cardinal Ratzinger wrote to you on my instructions on May 30th.(82)

From the above letter Archbishop Lefebvre was clearly forewarned by the Holy Father that he lacked the necessary pontifical mandate to proceed with his episcopal consecrations, and in so doing he would violate both the norms of canon law as well as the Protocol agreement. Furthermore, the Holy Father confirmed that his mind in this matter had been clearly stated by Cardinal Ratzinger in his letter of May 30th.

This would not deter Lefebvre from proceeding with his press conference on June 15, 1988, in order to publicly announce the names of the four candidates he intended to consecrate to episcopacy on June 30, 1988. Having been forewarned by both Cardinal Ratzinger and the Holy Father that the mandate necessary to proceed with the episcopal consecrations was lacking, and in light of this press conference announcing the four candidates, on behalf of the Congregation for Bishops Cardinal Gantin issued the following monition on June 17, 1988:

Since on June 15th, 1988 you stated that you intended to ordain four priests to the episcopate without having obtained the mandate of the Supreme Pontiff as required by canon 1013 of the Code of Canon Law, I myself convey to you this public canonical warning, confirming that if you should carry out your intention as stated above, you yourself and also the bishops ordained by you shall incur ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See in accordance with canon 1382.(83)

The latter part of the monition simply reiterates what is legislated in c. 1382, in that without a pontifical mandate one who consecrates a bishop, as well as those who receive consecration, are automatically excommunicated by the law itself. Having incurred such an excommunication, it can only be lifted by the Apostolic See. However, the monition from the Congregation for Bishops did not deter Lefebvre, and on June 30, 1988, he followed through with his threat and consecrated four candidates from the SSPX to the episcopacy without papal mandate. A serious act of disobedience and violation of ecclesiastical law, Lefebvre had now consummated the growing SSPX schism from Rome, automatically incurring excommunication.

Subsequently, the automatic excommunication against Lefebvre was declared by Cardinal Gantin in a decree from the Congregation for Bishops dated July 1, 1988, the day after the illicit consecrations. Acting in his official capacity on behalf of the pope, Cardinal Gantin solemnly declares:

Monsignor Marcel Lefebvre, Archbishop-Bishop Emeritus of Tulle, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning of 17 June last and the repeated appeals to desist from his intention, has performed a schismatic act by the episcopal consecration of four priests, without pontifical mandate and contrary to the will of the Supreme Pontiff, and has therefore incurred the penalty envisaged by Canon 1364, paragraph 1, and canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law… Having taken account of all the juridical effects, I declare that the above-mentioned Archbishop Lefebvre, and Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta have incurred ipso facto excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See.(84)

As is clearly visible from the decree of the Congregation for Bishops, having consecrated bishops without a valid pontifical mandate and against express wishes of the Holy See, Lefebvre automatically incurred excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See. Yet against this decree, Lefebvre’s apologists would argue “that the above decree is not the sentence of a judge, but rather a declaration that Canons 1364 and 1382 apply.”(85) That the excommunication is latae sententiae rather than ferendae sententiae is completely irrelevant in establishing the validity of Lefebvre’s excommunication. As c. 331 states, “by virtue of his office, [the Roman Pontiff] has supreme, full, immediate and universal ordinary power in the Church, and he can always freely exercise this power.” With regards to c. 1382, the Roman Pontiff has utilized his supreme legislative power to establish by law a latae sententiae excommunication for those who consecrate a bishop without papal mandate. In accordance with c. 17, such an ecclesiastical law must be understood according to the mind of the legislator, and in accordance with c. 16 §1, such a law is authentically interpreted by the legislator.

In the case of Archbishop Lefebvre, both the legislator’s mind and interpretation regarding c. 1382 were clearly and personally communicated to Lefebvre by the Supreme Legislator previous to Lefebvre’s violation of c. 1382. Furthermore, by the very fact Lefebvre proceeded publicly in his act of disobedience means his violation of c. 1013 was external, and hence c. 1321 §3 presumes his imputability in consecrating bishops without papal mandate. Therefore, neither his actions nor his imputability need be established in a judicial process.

With regards to the penalties imposed by c. 1364 §1, this norm establishes that “a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication, without prejudice to the provision of can. 194 §1, n. 2; a cleric, moreover, may be punished with the penalties mentioned in can. 1336 §1, nn. 1, 2 and 3.” As far as the penalties outlined in c. 1336, these are additional expiatory penalties that may be imposed, and thus are not directly applicable to the present controversy as neither Lefebvre nor the bishops illicitly consecrated have seriously attempted to reconcile their schism. Therefore, c. 1336 will not be addressed in the present study. On the other hand, c. 194 §1, 2o provides that “one who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from communion with the Church” is “removed from ecclesiastical office by virtue of the law itself.” However, c. 194 §2 legislates that the “removal mentioned in [c. 194 §1] nn. 2 and 3 can be insisted upon only if it is established by declaration of the competent authority.”

As the penalties mentioned in c. 1364 §1 apply to Lefebvre, he incurred an additional latae sententiae excommunication for the offense of schism. C. 751 defines schism as “the withdrawal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or from communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” Lefebvre’s act of consecrating bishops without papal mandate was a refusal of submission to the express will of the Supreme Pontiff. As the penalty for schism was declared by the competent authority in the form of the Holy
See, by virtue of the law itself Lefebvre was automatically removed from all ecclesiastical office.(86)

Against the declaration of schism, however, Lefebvre’s followers have argued that his consecration of bishops without papal mandate was not an act of withdrawal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or from the communion with the Church, but merely an act of disobedience. In citing one canonical study, Lefebvre’s followers maintain that “schism, defined in Canon 751, means refusal of subjection to the Supreme Pontiff or refusal of communion with other members of the Church. A mere act of disobedience to a superior does not imply denial that the superior holds office or has authority.”(87)

The above argument fails to take into account four variables relevant to Lefebvre’s consecration of bishops against the express will of the Supreme Pontiff. First, c. 751 does not specify that one must deny the superior’s possession of authority to incur schism, but rather that one must refuse to submit to this authority. Secondly, the superior to whom Lefebvre refused submission was the Supreme Pontiff who possesses full ordinary power and universal jurisdiction. Thirdly, the consecration of bishops against the express will of the Supreme Pontiff is no mere act of disobedience, but an act which carries by virtue of the law the penalty of latae sententiae excommunication — penalties which, when Lefebvre made public his intention to consecrate bishops without papal mandate, were reiterated to him personally by no less than the Supreme Pontiff and two Cardinal Prefects of curial congregations. Finally, in light of Lefebvre’s express intention in consecrating bishops without papal mandate, that of providing for the continuation of the SSPX until Rome adopts his position, Lefebvre was not carrying out an isolated act of disobedience, but rather he intended to perpetuate a situation of disobedience for a prolonged period of time. Hence, in light of the above variables, Lefebvre’s act of consecrating bishops without papal mandate cannot reasonably be dismissed as a simple act of disobedience to a superior.

Therefore, an objective canonical analysis of Lefebvre’s situation illustrates that he incurred a latae sententiae excommunication by virtue of the law both for the act of consecrating bishops without papal mandate, and for carrying out this act against the express will of the Supreme Pontiff as an act of schism. Thus the canonical arguments proposed by the Lefebvrite movement against the validity of the excommunications cannot be sustained in light of the Church’s canonical jurisprudence.

2.3 AFTER THE SCHISM AND EXCOMMUNICATION OF LEFEBVRE

On July 2, 1988, two days after Lefebvre’s episcopal consecrations without papal mandate, the Pope John Paul II promulgated an apostolic letter motu proprio entitled Ecclesia Dei adflicta in which he sought to facilitate the reconciliation into the Church of Archbishop Lefebvre’s former followers. In addressing Lefebvre’s illicit episcopal consecrations, the Holy Father solemnly confirmed both the excommunication of Lefebvre and the existence of his schism as follows:

In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the Church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience — which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy — constitutes a schismatic act. In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alphonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.(88)

Please tell me, Mr Anonymous, why ought anyone take your opinion over that of the Supreme Law Maker and Law Interpreter? To this point of time, in his official capacity, Pope Benedict XVI has not published an official document which counters that of Pope John Paul II! Lefebvre remains excommunicated for the crime of schism!

Recently I replied to an apologist for the Society of St Pius X (SSPX) who complained in a post to the Liturgy and Sacraments section [Scroll to Message #46 ] of Karl Keating’s Catholic Answers Forum:

“Sean

You are very very angry at SSPX, why is that may I ask? And your protection of Jews is admirable, but I think that they have about 1,000 Jewish organizations and shark Lawyers scouring the websites looking for something they can insinuate is anti-semitic so they can launch one big lawsuit.”

Angry? I am, simply, doing penance for my sins. Schism IS a most serious sin. To see so many good persons become involved in serious sin which, possibly, involves the loss of souls, for the lack of solid information – that is a tragedy compounded. As for the Jews? Because of other events – ought I not attempt to lessen anti-semetism? After all, Jesus, Mary and most of the Apostles were Jews (or Judeans), weren’t they? Ought I to tolerate attacks on THEM because some of the descendents of “the Jews” today do naughty things?

Well, let’s see who are the “very very angry” ones:

But first:
Extracts from an Interview with Michael Davies
November 1976

Firstly: Archbishop Lefebvre agreed with the propositions that

“Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council properly convoked by the reigning Pontiff according to the accepted norms.”;

He accepted “that its official documents were voted for by a majority of the Council Fathers and validly promulgated by the reigning Pontiff.”; and then he disagreed with the next allegation:

That “you intend to consecrate one or more bishops to continue your work. Is this true?” “Mgr. Lefebvre: It is totally untrue.”

WHAT ARCHBISHOP LEFEBVRE SAID/DID NEGATIVELY:
Nov. 21, 1974
“Lefebvre castigates Vatican II, declaring the reform of Vatican Council II to be entirely corrupt, coming from and resulting in heresy; it is not possible for any faithful Catholic to adopt or submit to it in any way, but that it is to be categorically refused. He says that he held firmly to all that has been believed and practiced in matters of faith, morals, worship, catechetical instruction, priestly formation, Church institutions, and such things codified in the books which appeared before the Modernist influence of the Council. Rome is neo-modernist and neo-protestant. It is impossible for any alert Catholic to adopt or submit to it in any way at all.”
[Declaration of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre “Catholic”, Jan 87, p6., and ECÔNE FULL STOP, Fortes in Fide, by Fr Noél Barbara.]

May 15, 1976
“Bugnini denied the charge that he was a Freemason, both during the summer of 1975 and in the years that followed. He maintained it was a false and calumnious charge until his dying day.” […] “Despite Bugnini’s denials, the charges continued to be repeated. Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, by the mid-1970’s already on a collision course with Rome, told his friends and benefectors that ‘until 1975 the principal director of liturgical reforms at the Vatican was a Freemason.’ (Lettre aux amis et bienfaiteurs [d’Econe], no. 10, May 15, 1976″ – as reported by Dr. Robert Moynihan The Bitter Struggle

It appears that the only evidence is polemical and circumstantial. No actual verifiable evidence appears to have surfaced to verify the calumny.

July 29, 1976
On this day, under the shock of the suspension a divinis, Mgr. Lefebvre declared: “This conciliar church is a schismatic church because it breaks with the Catholic Church of the centuries …” “This conciliar church is schismatic because it has taken as the basis for its updating principles opposed to those of the Catholic Church.” “The church which affirms errors like these is both schismatic and heretical. This conciliar church is thus not Catholic.”

Aug 4, 1976
Mgr. Lefebvre treats the conciliar church, its hierarchy and particularly its “pope” as schismatic: “All those who cooperate in the application of this upheaval, accept and adhere to this new conciliar church … enter into schism.”
[Le Figaro, Aug. 4, 1976. ECÔNE FULL STOP, Fortes in Fide, by Fr Noél Barbara.]

June 29, 1976
Archbishop Lefebvre derisively stated on the occasion of his suspension from the administration of the Sacraments by Paul VI:

“We are suspended a divinis by the Conciliar Church and for the Conciliar Church, to which we have no wish to belong. That Conciliar Church is a schismatic Church, because it breaks with the Catholic Church that has always been. It has its new dogmas, its new priesthood, its new institutions, its new worship, all already condemned by the Church in many a document, official and definitive…

“The Church that affirms such errors is at once schismatic and heretical. This Conciliar Church is, therefore, not Catholic. To whatever extent Pope, Bishops, priests, or faithful adhere to this new Church, they separate themselves from the Catholic Church.”
[Reflections on Suspension “a divinis” by Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre.]

Nov. 8, 1979
Up to the 8 November 1979 Declaration, Lefebvre had called the Roman Catholic Church (the so-called “Conciliar Church”) “the official church which is not the Church.” (Conference at Vienne, 9 September 1975), and “a schismatic church.”
[Allocution at the rally of international Catholic associations, 20 April 1976.]

By 1986
the tone of the Archbishop’s language had degenerated to the point where he described the post Conciliar reformed liturgy and Sacraments in this way:

“All these (pre Pope John XXIII) Popes have resisted the union of the Church with the revolution; it is an adulterous union and from such a union only bastards can come. The rite of the new mass is a bastard rite, the sacraments are bastard sacraments. We no longer know if they are sacraments which give grace or do not give it. The priests coming out of the seminaries are bastard priests, who do not know what they are. They are unaware that they are made to go up to the altar, to offer the sacrifice of Our Lord Jesus Christ and to give Jesus Christ to souls.”
[“Apologia Pro Archbishop Lefebvre”, Vol. 1, pp. 347/8, published by The Angelus Press, 1979, and “An Open Letter To Confused Catholics”, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Fowler Wright Books Ltd for The Society of St Pius X, p. 116, 1986.]

“Now in the Catholic religion it is the priest who celebrates Mass; it is he who offers the bread and wine. The notion of ‘president’ has been borrowed directly from Protestantism…”
[“An Open Letter To Confused Catholics”, by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, Fowler Wright Books Ltd for The Society of St Pius X, p. 22, 1986.]

August 29, 1987
“The See of Peter and the posts of authority in Rome being occupied by anti-Christs, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below, especially through the corruption of the Holy Mass which is both the splendid expression of the triumph of Our Lord on the Cross — Regnavit a Ligno Deus — and the source of the extension of His kingdom over souls and over societies.”
{Letter to the Future Bishops]

Sept. 4, 1987
“Rome has apostacised, the Roman churchmen are quitting the Church, their program of de-christianising society is an abomination.”
[Lefebvre “in a conference to Society priests at Ecône. “Catholic”, Dec 87, p1.]

WHAT LEFEBVRIST CLERICAL MEMBERS SAID NEGATIVELY:
Oct. 3, 1984
On the Decree of the Roman Congregation for Divine Worship (released 15/10/84) to the Presidents of Episcopal Conferences, Fr. Richard Williamson stated: “While acknowledging that a Pope may legitimately introduce a new rite of Mass, we can never admit that a rite, departing so far from Tradition as the Novus Ordo Missae is, as such, legitimate or doctrinally sound.” “THE VATICAN DECREE” “Catholic”, Dec 84, p.4.

March 16, 1986
Fr Augustine Cummins, C.Ss.R. claimed that Fr. Franz Schmidberger’s (the Superior General of the SSPX) Letter To Friends and Benefactors No. 30. March 16, 1986
Contained an historical error involving a point of Catholic Doctrine – “the implication would be that the prayer of Christ was NOT efficacious. Such a conclusion would, of course, be nothing short of blasphemy.” – (“Catholic”, July-Aug. 1986, p.3.). [Schmidberger had claimed that Liberius was a heretic. F.J.L.]

1989
In Sherbrook, Quebec, he [Bishop Richard Williamson] said, “there was not one Jew killed in the gas chambers. It was all lies, lies, lies. The Jews created the Holocaust so we would prostrate ourselves on our knees before them and approve of their new State of Israel…. Jews made up the Holocaust, Protestants get their orders from the devil, and the Vatican has sold its soul to liberalism.”

August 27 1994
“Instead of signing useless petitions all those who want the traditional mass should join our ranks and show Rome a united front and boycott the new mass, the new clergy, in fine, this new religion…” (Fr Jean Violette, Letter to Faithful, August 27, 1994.)

“One of the conditions for the granting of the ‘favour’ is that the new mass be recognized as being as good as the traditional Mass…” [Ibid.]

“THIS INDULT IS AN INSULT. IT IS NOT FOR US…,we do not accept the new mass as lawful…an adulterous union with its bastard fruits…we want the concubine gone…we hope and pray…for the condemnation and total disappearance of the new mass…the traditional mass…IS THE ONLY FORM OF WORSHIP ACCEPTABLE TO GOD. The new mass is not.” [Ibid.]

“…instead of turning to God, instead of asking the faithful to pray and sacrifice, instead of taking the supernatural means, he [the pope] is taking the worldly diplomatic means.” (Ibid.)

October 7, 1994
This was followed up with quotations from Archbishop Lefebvre of unstated date: Regarding ‘”..our enemies on the other side…’celebrating the Tridentine Mass…THEY ARE BETRAYING US…they are doing the devil’s work.’ ” (Fr Jean Violette, Letter to Faithful, October 7, 1994.)

November 1, 1994
As to “conservative” Catholics: “…to associate in friendship or solidarity with them is implicitly to betray the Catholic Faith…” (Fr Jean Violette, Letter to Faithful, November 1, 1994.)

January 21, 1995
“…what I hold as the true religion is other than (emphasis added) the Catholic Church held up to Pius XII…” (Fr. Jean Violette letter to F. John Loughnan.).

“‘The Pope, the bishops in union with him and the vast majority of Catholics who worship God in a way other than the way employed by the Society are deemed to be in a new religion.’ Yes absolutely!” (Ibid.)

“…the fact that I refuse to cooperate with the Ecclesia Dei people…the Society of St Peter or Dom Gerard…I want nothing to do with them either…the Ecclesia Dei movement here in Australia… they must also agree that the new mass is good…and most of them accept the excommunication of Archbishop Lefebvre.” (Ibid.)

“…I deny the Catholic Church since Vatican II; I concede.” (Ibid.);

March 1, 1995
“…there are…at least 23 different Catholic rites in the Church (the novus ordo not included)…” (Fr. Jean Violette, District “Letter to Friends”; “Mr Pickford says: ‘The Pope, the bishops in union with him and the vast majority of Catholics who worship God in a way other than the way employed by the Society are deemed to be in a new religion.’ Yes absolutely!…” (Fr Jean Violette, Letter to F.J. Loughnan, January 21, 1995, and Letter to Faithful, Mar. 1, 1995.)

“Mr Pickford says: ‘Father Violette establishes his belief that what he holds as true religion is other than what the Catholic Church holds as true religion.’ I distinguish; what I hold as the true religion is other than (he actually means “what”, F.J.L.) the Catholic Church held up to Pius XII (sic.!!!); I deny, the Catholic Church since Vatican II; I concede.”(!!!) (Ibid.)

July 28, 1996
Fr Kevin Robinson of Hampton, Australia, during the Sermon on the Novus Ordo stated that Archbishop Lefebvre
“Had NEVER described it as being invalid, nor heretical, nor not fulfilling the Sunday obligation.

At the same time, he had NEVER described it as being in the contrary sense,” i.e., NOT BEING invalid, nor NOT BEING heretical, “nor AS fulfilling the Sunday obligation, and had never said it himself.” (Of course, he did not disclose that Lefebvre had actively participated in the Novus Ordo!!! Please refer to 30/6/1980 Item in opposite column.

Regarding the New Mass: “…it is of itself a danger to the faith and is intrinsically evil …I am denying what Mr Davies says you cannot: the New Mass is an official Mass of the Catholic Church.”; (that is, he positively affirms that the New Mass is NOT an official Mass of the Catholic Church). (Fr James Peek, Holy Cross Seminary Bulletin, July 3, 1996.)

September 18, 1996
“Our rejection of the Novus Ordo must be absolute … attend it?…only (as) for attending non-catholic functions…(a) sin…if he is aware of (it’s) nocivity (sic)…If I were ever to say the New Mass, know that I would be committing a mortal sin…” (Fr James Peek, Holy Cross Seminary Bulletin, Sept. 18, 1996.)

October 1996
“…when I said the Novus Ordo is intrinsically evil…what is meant is that the New Mass, as it was published in 1969, objectively, taken in itself, regardless of the priest, and not only the abuses which followed, is bad, is evil.” (Fr Jean Violette, Letter to Faithful, October 1996.)

July/August 1998 “The dissimulation of Catholic elements and the pandering to Protestants that are evident in the New Mass do render it a danger to our faith and, as such, evil in itself.”
“Archbishop Lefebvre himself preferred to avoid the term ‘intrinsically evil’ because it does lend itself to misrepresentation.” Cf.. CATHOLIC Nov. 1996. p.6 (A Rome and Econe Handbook, by Frs Jean Violette and James Peek) and “A ROME AND ECONE HANDBOOK” [Fr V and Fr P July/Aug. 1998]

May 1997
“The extermination of Jews by the Nazis could only be the doing of an anti-Christian regime. The Church for its part has at all times forbidden and condemned the killing of Jews even when ‘their grave defects rendered them odious to the nations among which they were established.’ ” …All this makes us think that the Jews are the most active artisans for the coming of antichrist.” (Bishop Tissier de Malleraise, “Catholic”, May 1997, under the title, “The Jews in Latter Times”.)

April 1, 1998
(Regarding ‘The corruption of the Holy Mass’ spoken of by Archbishop Lefebvre in 1988)…”in the majority of churches still operating, it is the abomination of desolation and a mockery of the truth which have replaced the Holy of Holies…” (Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of St Pius X, Letter To Friends And Benefactors, 25 March 1998 – reproduced in the Holy Cross Seminary Letter To Friends And Benefactors, 1st April 1998.)

Jan. 1, 2000
“Do not support priests who are willing to celebrate the New Mass, even on occasion…” (Fr. Peter Scott, District Letter).

May 2000
A Call to Schism!: “Remember that if you cannot get to the true Catholic Mass celebrated by a good traditionalist priest, you should not attend the New Mass OR the Indult Mass, and this even if it is the only traditional Mass available.” (>Fr. Peter Scott, >Regina Coeli Report,/i> May 2000.)br>

December 6, 2002
Bishop Richard Williamson: “In conclusion, these more or less Conciliar ‘canonizations’ are correspondingly fallible, and are automatically not infallible. Obviously Padre Pio was an entirely Traditional Saint, and we need not doubt the worthiness of his canonization. However, it might be advisable not to profit by his Newchurch ‘canonization’ to venerate him officially or in public, insofar as that might be liable to give to other Newchurch ‘canonizations’ a credit which is not due to them.”

In another place, on March 10, 2000, the same Hilary uttered the following imprecation against Sean Ó Lachtnáin:
“WE ARE THE ROMAN CATHOLICS PRESERVING THE TRUE FAITH FOR THE NOW AND FOR THE TOMORROW UNDER THE GREAT ORDER OF THE CATHOLIC SSPX…true, Sean, you may be Catholic but are you a good Catholic?….I know I am…and may the curse of Mary Malone and her nine blind illegitimate children chase you so far over the hills of damnation that the Lord himself can’t find you with a telescope!!”
The following on March 10, 2000 from the lovely lady: “Since its almost St Patrick’s day a little Irish ditty to Sean…… HERE’S TO WINE, MEN AND SONG. HERE’S TO WORKDAYS, THAT AREN’T TOO LONG. HERE’S TO SHOES THAT ALWAYS FIT… AND HERE’S TO SEAN, THE SILLY SH**T!!!”
“Tradcat” – another SSPXer:
On the same web-file:

“You are a crackpot and need true mental care. Go check yourself into the local happy farm.”
Jason Baran: SSPXer and anti-semite
Refer: brickbats and Bouquets

“All followers of Antipope John-Paul II, and those who attend the satanic Novus Ordo ‘Mass’ will not escape the fires of Hell. The schismatic Novus Ordo sect, lead by antipope John-Paul II is not the Roman Catholic Church, but the whore of Babylon!

“Homo deterrime! Sublesta fide. Corruptor iuventutis!

“I’ve read the slanderous lies you’ve told about me on your satanic website. br. Michael Dimond has nothing to do with my refusal to practice the counterfeit religion that was concocted at Vatican II. I obey Tradition and infallible Papal Bulls like Quo Primum Tempore that states that ANYONE who would ever attempt to make a ‘New Mass’ would incur the wrath of Almighty God and the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul. I also notice that like a good Communist, you think we should marry off our daughters to Negroes and bow down to Christ-killing Jews. If you do not renounce your heresy, I pray God that I live to see the day when the likes of you will be put to death as a heretic according to due process of law.”

(cont.)

F. John Loughnan

(cont.)

Rev. Dr. “X” a New York Archdiocesan priest:
Refer: brickbats on “An Open Letter to Confused ‘traditionalists'”

Sat, 1 Apr 2000
“Thank you for your ‘open letter’ to ‘confused traditionalists.’ Your writing illustrates an already established observation, namely that liberals like yourself, are very good at Naziism.”

“If you bother to subject the writings, and speeches and practices of JP2 to the same nazi style analysis as you applied to Archbishop Lefebvre, you could conceivably discover an anti Christ. The one consoling fact that keeps me on the right side of the de facto schism is that there is simply NO ONE to take the place of the Nazi liberal pigs, like yourself who have destroyed our Churches, perverted our Catholic Faith, poisened our children with the vilest of heresies, and removed the Holy Sacrament from our midst. You have no one to take your place, and your filthy deeds will die with you.”

[I add: The good priest DID apologise for his remarks. F.J.L.]
Rick Cox – Officer of “The Sovereign Military Order of St John of Jerusalem – OSJ”
On: brickbats from an OSJite Official

“I read what you posted about John brindle.

“I don’t know him, but (based on what I get from you) I like him.

“Attached is a photo of the current pope. I can tell that you are a great admirer of this man so I am sure that you will like the photo of him kissing the Koran. After all, what can a grand apostate like JPII find to argue against a grand heretic like Mohammed?

“I do not claim that John Paul II is not the pope. I claim that he is an apostate, a heretic, a bad pope, and a bad man.

“However, I do believe in and practice the religion of the popes — all of the popes up to John XXIII. As far as I know, they all TAUGHT the religion of Jesus of Nazareth. That is not to say that they all made a good practice of it, but (at least) they TAUGHT it.

“Furthermore, they did not replace the Holy Mass with a damnable sacrilegious insult to Our Lord and pretend that it is a real Mass.

“This New Conciliar Religion is not Catholicism. Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear knows that. If YOU had a Catholic education in your youth, YOU know it.”

Prakash Mascarenhas – an Orthopapist (a “sort of” sede-vacantist):
“… There is however, a big difference between INCULTURATION, and SPIRITUAL FORNICATION. This latter is what Sri Abominationeshwara Karol Wojtyla does, thus meriting for himself the title of the Chief Disciple and Preceptor of the ‘Saints Oolla and Ooliba’ (Eze. 23) and of their father Balaam (Num.31: 16). And not the least, the LYING POLE!

“…Ought you not to take a break, and rehabilitate your intelligence? (Only an idiot will argue that a man can be called antipope only in opposition to another claimant. If a man’s claim to a position is false, he is a pretender, whether or not there is a true claimant.)

“…Loughnan, it seems, is either an outright lunatic, or is desperately trying to get there. It pains me to say so. But consider the extraordinary charges he lays against me for the use of the name Balaam to describe the antipopes Roncalli through Wojtyla.

Patrick Johnson
Date: Tue, 5 Mar 2002

“I just have to reply to some of the articles you have written in recent times with regard to the Society of Saint Pius X. I must say ‘Sir’ that you are an idiot who has deprived some poor village somewhere in the world of a village idiot. Amazing isn’t it that a man ejeculates millions of sperm in a sexual act yet somehow you snuck in there, and here we are with the greatest moron of all times. You ‘sir’ obviously have more time on your hands than sense, and in attempting to profile someone of your ilk, I would guess that you are narcissistic, self opinionated, fat, inert, inept, incompetent, impotent, uneducated and I bet the Australian Tax Payer supports you. One Hundred and thirty six pages..hmmmm No wonder Ratzinger had his minion Perl reply.

“I might be a convert to the Catholic Church, and one does not need to be a Rhodes Scholar to notice what is actually going on. You shite head are no Henry VIII, no. you can never be known as Defender of the Faith…Dickhead of the Faith more likely.

“I am just glad that there are probably not many like you in this world…..afterall we know God is Merciful and the chances of your clone or others like you are mercifully few and far between. It is people such as you who reinforce the Therory of Evolution, and support the argument for abortion.

“Yours in contempt”

Thomas Sparks a.k.a. “tommythe lesser”
Date: Tue. 13 Aug 2002

“Louton, you must be a queer to bitch so much. Admit it, you are a sad old queer with nothing better to do.”
[ I must add here that Thomas Sparks, of who I had much to say in “The Jews” – judging by his re-vamped website at Roman Catholicism Org. – has has a remarkable reversion to the Church. Glory and thanks be to God! F.J.L.]

David Ycavall
Date: Sat. 9 Aug. 2003

“(“F” word deleted) asshole!!!”

2005
I became aware of a file on Prakash Mascarenhas’ website:

Pursuant to several exchanges between myself, “Sean O L” and “Fr. Ambrose” (a Russian Orthodox priest located in New Zealand) on the “Catholic Community Forum” (Refer: http://www.catholic-forum.com/dcforum/tradition/317.html ) where, as a matter of “old-fashioned” courtesy (I am now 70 years of age) I had respectfully commenced my posts with “Dear Fr. Ambrose” and he had replied: “Dear Sean”, Mr Mascarenhas falsely, maliciously and libelously defamed both myself and Fr. Ambrose in the following manner:

He wrote:
“The reader is requested to read the above exchange – this love-feast between ‘Sean O L’ and ‘Dear Fr. Ambrose’ – carefully before proceeding, since what I have written hereafter, although harsh, is in context of this ‘loving inter-exchange.

“I hope also, that the reader will have noted this strange, abnormal spectacle: this ‘love-feast’ between two viscious anti-Catholics, their coy courtship of each other, with dainty, mincing steps…”

“[…]

“Such men are ‘Matt1916′, Karl Keating, Robert Fox, brian Harrison, David Armstrong, etc. Simulators of Catholicism, simulating Catholics! And then there are the ‘Three Muskereers’ of Infernum, self-appointed apologists of Satan: John Loughnan, William Grossklas and james Akin. Loughnan is the subject of this article.”

Then he proceeds to expose the home addresses and other details of myself and William Grossklas. He continues:

“This is the Internet Confraternity of the Itching Ears – League of Modernist Mountebanks, over which Sean Ó Lachtnáin presides, with the able and valuable assistance of Grossy William and the effeminate James Akin as Common Catamite!”

“[…]

“The entire exchange between Loughnan and his darling friend, the heretic and schismatic ‘Dear Fr. Ambrose’ evokes a sodomitical relationship between two queers in love with each other, and engaging in a public ‘love-fest’, sodomising each other!

“…Dear Ó Lactating falls all over himself in order to placate his darling butch ‘Fr. Ambrose’! “

“[…]

“Let me point out to the reader the implications of this ‘love-feast’ between these sodomites:…”

PLEASE NOTE:
There is no foundation whatsoever in the claims of Mr Prakash Mascarenhas for me to my being anything other than a normal heterosexual male – happily and faithfully married since September 24, 1960 to my wife, Norma. We have three childres, born in 1965, 1966 and 1967. In fact, I state unequivocally, that I have never been, nor had any inclination towards anything other than heteroxexuality.

Mr Mascarenhas continued,

DEMEANING AND HARASSING ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE POST-VATICAN II POPES, POPE JOHN PAUL II IN PARTICULAR; AND TO THOSE WHO ARE IN UNION WITH HIM:
1. “Loughnan’s darling heresiarch and arch-Satanist, Wojytla, it is true, is extremely, frantically, running around, apologizing to one and all for the Offense that Christ. His claims and His Cross, represents, even as he frantically runs about offending Christ, sinning against the First Commandment … It is a toss-up which of these is the greater evil…the greater abomination!

“This monster (Wojtyla), the Mahatma Abominationishwara, is also the Patron of Sexual deviancies, of the sexual abuse perpetrated by his ‘clerics’, and which he himself religiously practices:…

“If being a fornicator constitutes his ‘Supreme qualification’ to be Pope, then, in truth, Larry Flynt is far better qualified!”

2. “These men were William Grossklas, F. John Loughnan and James Akin. The principle issue which I had taken up with them was the reception, by their Heresiarch Wojtyla – the Mahatma Abominationishwara, …

“…they are agents of Roman Modernism, an apostate sect, and are motivated by a passionate hatred for Christ and His Church, and by a hysteric fear that souls may escape from the Maws of their foul sect, from the Program of Damnation – the New Penticost, the New Springtime, the New Age, the New Order, the Age of Aquarius – inaugurated by their Heresiarch Roncalli and presently administered by their Heresiarch Wojtyla – the ‘Lying Pole!’ ”
(Refer: http://www.geocities.com/prakashjm45/yurchyklog.html )

“[…]

3. “However, even so, I need to state that I along with very many persons, have refused to abandon the Catholic Faith following its Protestatantization in 1958-1965 under Roncalli (‘John XXIII’), Montini (‘Paul VI’), Luciani (‘John-Paul I’), and Karol Wojtyla (‘John-Paul II’), whom, under the principles of Pope Paul IV’s Bull, Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio we entirely and absolutely refuse to recognize, both as ‘popes’ and all their pretended acts, teachings, etc.”

In other words, while claiming to be a Catholic, he believes, contrary to c. 99.9% of Catholics who are in union with the Holy See in Rome, that the visible occupants of the papal See in Rome are not Popes at all, but, that an obscure man in Wyoming, Pope Michael, a.k.s. David Bawden is the true pope.
(Refer: http://www.geocities.com/prakashjm45/tuespetrus.html )

He goes on to say in another place:

“Further to this, I had even investigated the various persons who had claimed to be the Pope. After a process of elimination, I had been left with just three: Michael I, Linus II and Pius XIII. Originally, I had rejected each of these three as being defective and thus not having achieved the papacy. However, subsequently, I did a reinvestigation, and found that the Claim of Pope Michael I is true and valid.”
(Refer: http://www.geocities.com/prakashjm45/jfquery.html )

4. “…I write regarding a page written by William Grossklas – one of that pack of three rabid and self-constituted guard-dogs – Alpha Loughnan, Beta Grossklass and the joker-pup Akin – of the apostate Modernist sect, the Antichurch…

5. Referring to Fr. brian Harrison, whom he calls “Mr Harrison” as “surpassing such persons as Dave Armstrong, William Most, Keating, ‘Matt1618′ and the Akin, Loughnan and Grossklas” as “emerged as the greatest ideological justificatory for Antichurch and Antipope…”

In other words, he describes the Catholic Church and its adherents who are in communion with the Pope in Rome as being members of an “Apostate sect” under an “antipope” (John Paul II) – as opposed to himself who adhered to Pope Michael/David Bawden.
(Refer URL: http://www.geocities.com/prakashjm45/ahah2.html )

8. “Now I have found the pages of the Abbe de nantes on La salette, and also those of the notorious anti-Catholic, John Loughnan, in which he (John Loughnan) exposes this message as a fraud.”
(Refer URL: http://www.geocities.com/prakashjm45/sols.html )

9. “Thirdly, this is become a Scandal, with apologists of the New Church accusing us of being in cahoots with the Feeneyites such as the Diamonds. I learnt only from one such New Church apologist, John Loughnan, that the Dimonds are Feeneyites, although I now have personal confirmation from Peter Dimond.”
(Refer URL: http://www.geocities.com/prakashjm45/adfeeney.html )

FOSTERING HATRED TOWARDS THE JEWS

1. “[…]

“We have Jews, through their dupes, waging savage, horrendous war with no real provocation whatsoever. We have a systematically organized effort to subvert and seduce members of a particular religion and also states. All this by a specific sect: the Jews…

“… In sum then, we have seen and found that the Jews are obsessively Christophobic, and that towards this end, for the last so many centuries, they have secretly conspired and instigated rebellions, revolutions and bloody persecutions after bloody persecutions against Christianity and Christians.

“…we have been besieged…by their paymasters, guides, zelators and organizers: the Jews…

All that I can say is: please pray for the deliverance of these poor souls from their torment. The above represent just a few examples of the “objectionable” attitudes of the SSPX members and adherents to the SSPX. Of course, other so-called “traditionalists” are even more objectionable in many instances.

MICHAEL DAVIES ON THE NEGATIVE ASSERTIONS:
In response to statements made by some SSPX priests in Australia Mr Michael Davies responded with: 33
“The Roman Rite, to which the overwhelming majority of Catholics belong, is considered as equivalent to the universal Church. It is thus incompatible with the profession of the Catholic Faith to claim that any liturgical rite approved by the Roman Pontiff for universal use, above all the rite of Mass, could be invalid, contain heresy, or harm souls…

“It is thus, to put it mildly, theologically untenable to maintain that ‘the New Mass is not a Catholic liturgy … is in itself a danger to the faith and is intrinsically evil.’ and is not ‘an official Mass of the Catholic Church’…

“To deny the Catholic character of the New Mass constitutes an explicit denial of the divine authority of the Pope and must therefore be considered a schismatic act. To state that the New Mass is intrinsically evil is also blasphemous…

“The question as to whether the New Mass is or is not intrinsically evil must be decided by our acceptance or rejection of the fact that Paul VI was a true Pope. If he was then the New Mass is an official Catholic Mass. Those who deny that Paul VI was a true Pope are schismatic and their opinion is of no relevance to members of the indefectible Church founded by Our Lord.” Catholic, Oct. 96, p. 9.

——————————————————————————–

In my opinion, the words of Bishop Fernando Rifan, of Campos, brazil reflect the true attitude which faithful Catholics ought to follow:
“Some persons have questioned the occasional participation of Dom Fernando and some of his priests in Masses celebrated in the Rite of Paul VI.

“Dom Fernando is a Catholic bishop, member of the Catholic episcopate, in communion with the Holy Father the Pope. Thus, like every Catholic bishop, even those of a different rite, he must demonstrate this full communion practically.

“No one can be Catholic while remaining in an attitude of refusal of communion with the Pope and with the Catholic episcopate. In fact, the Church defines as schismatic those who refuse to submit to the Roman Pontiff or to remain in communion with the other members of the Church who are his subjects (canon 751).

“Now, to refuse continually and explicitly to participate in every and any Mass in the rite celebrated by the Pope and by all the bishops of the Church while judging this rite, in itself, incompatible with the Faith, or sinful, represents a formal refusal of communion with the Pope and with the Catholic episcopate.

“The objective fact cannot be denied that the rite of Paul VI is the official rite of the Latin Church, celebrated by the Pope and by all the Catholic episcopate.

“If we consider the New Mass in itself, in theory or in practice, as invalid or heretical, sacrilegious, heterodox, sinful, illegitimate or not Catholic, we would have to hold the theological conclusions of this position and apply them to the Pope and the entire episcopate residing in the world – that is, the whole teaching Church: that the Church has officially promulgated, maintained for decades, and offers every day to God an illegitimate and sinful worship — a proposition condemned by the Magisterium — and that, therefore, the gates of hell have prevailed against her, which would be a heresy. Or else we would be adopting the sectarian principle that we alone are the Church, and outside of us there is no salvation, which would be another heresy. These positions cannot be accepted by a Catholic, either in theory or in practice.

“Our participation, therefore, is based on doctrinal principles. And it does not mean that we do not have reservations about the new rite, as we have already respectfully brought to the attention of the Holy See. Neither does our participation signify approval of everything that may happen. To be united to the hierarchy of the Church and in perfect communion with her does not mean approval of many errors that grow in the bosom of the Holy Church, provoked by her human part. And, of course, we lament profoundly with the Holy Father that the Liturgical Reform has given room for ‘ambiguities, liberties, creativities, adaptations, reductions and instrumentalizations’ (Ecclesia de Eucharistia, n. 10.52.61) and also has given ‘origin to many abuses and led in a certain way to the disappearance of the respect due to the sacred’ (Cardinal Edouard Gagnon, Offerten Situng — Röemisches, nov.dez. 1993, p. 35). Above all, we reject every profanation of the Liturgy, for example the Masses in which the ‘Liturgy degenerates into a “show,” where one is tempted to make religion interesting with the help of silly changes in fashion…with momentary successes for the group of liturgical fabricators’, as Cardinal Ratzinger criticized (Introduction to the book La Reforme Liturgique by Mgr. Klaus Gamber. p. 6).

For all these reasons, we preserve the venerable rite of St. Pius V, but ‘cum Petro et sub Petro’, in full communion.”

——————————————————————————–

Conclusion: I think that BullDogCath (and other like-minded “traditionalists”) suffer from the condition known as “chutzpah” [“cheek”!]; however, in the knowledge that people like they and I! CAN return to the full-Communion with Holy Mother Church, I earnestly request prayers on our behalf.

As one may observe – I have received one or two rather “interesting” responses to my efforts. Ce’st la vie, c’est la guerre.”

Anonymous

I should be grateful if you did not attribute to me sentiments that I did not express.

Where did I use the word “demonic”? My posts are entirely gentile and far from containing “machismo authority” although it is kind of you to flatter me with such a characteristic. I am entitled to express an opinion, just as you are entitled to disagree with it, and I see no cause for the belligerence your post contains.

As for the “nonsense” which you accuse me of writing, I am referring to the contradictions of earlier doctrines contained in the outcomes of the second Vatican Council. Far from “complaining” about them, I am simply doing my duty as a loyal Catholic in highlighting them because they pitch the Rhine Fathers against the Holy Ghost.

I know from previous exchanges with you that you are unable to swallow the truth of this observation and that you will simply go off on another lecture, from which may the Lord spare us.

Ps: If by your new-found buzzword “RadTrad” you are suggesting a traditional radiator, giving out warmth and helping to sustain life, you are not far wide of the mark.

DBMcGinnity

I CANNOT PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR A FALLACY

To begin with, I am not an Atheist because I fervently accept that God if everywhere and in everything and in everybody. I believe that the world is still being created and evolving, , and there are probably trillions of universes to explore as time goes on. We are only at the beginning of creation and there is so much to explore. I am pleased to a Christian because I endeavour to emulate the pristine teachings of Jesus Christ which is to educate children and prepare them to cope with life’s actual events and to alleviate all suffering; I try do that in my own way.

There is no point in asking me to justify or proclaim something that is totally illogical.
Also there is no point in confronting me with what I said in an officious adversarial manner, because I do not accept that Roman Catholic teaching is logical or rational.

I attend the “Novus Ordo Seclorum” (New Order of the Ages) Mass because I meet with my friends and it is all very happy with the sound of children’s laughter. The love and spirit of God is clearly evident. In the afternoon I attend SSPX Traditional “Missa Cantata” Latin Mass, with which I am very familiar. The atmosphere is very solemn, reverential and austere. I find it very spiritual and I pray fervently. This is not an good atmosphere for children, because children are told to ‘hush’. Both services are equal in value to me because God and Jesus are present. I go to communion at both Mass’s .
I also feel equally at home in Anglican, Episcopalian, Methodist, Presbyterian, Pentecostal, Baptist or Mormon Church’s. I believe the Power of God is present in Synagogues, Mosques, Hindu, Buddhist and Sikh Temples, and anywhere else on earth where goodness is practiced.

I have no wish to intellectualise with you or anybody else about the contents of the bible. When I was at school, seminary, university (student and lecturer) and in life in general it is common practice to play the Stephen Potter “One-up-man-ship” game of; “I know more than you, my dad is richer than your dad etc.”. I do not play such games and I do not need to justify my opinions. I have read every word the bible several times (most editions), and I have visited all the places associated with Jesus, including India. I am convinced that Jesus spend 17 years in India and learned Buddhist philosophy as the sermon on the mount illustrates. There is more evidence that Jesus lived in India than him living in Bethlehem or Nazareth. I have read 17 books on this subject but the two listed are well worth reading:

The Lost Years of Jesus by Elizabeth Clare Prophet (1987) Summit University Press. ISBN 978-0-916766-87-0
When Jesus Lived in India by Alan Jacobs (2009) Watkins Publishing
ISBN 978-1-906787-17-2

I accept all your bible quotations but I interpret the bible as a wonderful beautiful book of philosophical parables and fables from which there is much to learn. I certainly have.
I do not accept the ridiculously arcane concept of original sin, heaven, hell or life hereafter. But I do accept in a metaphorical sense what Aldous Huxley said : “This world is another planet’s hell”. Sadly, for many people this world has been hell on earth, often at the behest of The Catholic Church as the Irish Industrial Schools and Magdalene Laundries show.

There has been grave translation contamination regarding Jesus. Constantine proclaimed him “The Sun of God” (perpetual light of God as in Sol Invictus) and not the “Son of God” The Body of Christ was in the organisational context, meaning the followers of Christ and the organisation of Christendom. Not the physical body of Christ as Constantine and his followers proclaimed. But the Catholic Church teaching: sadism, cruelty, blood and guts, torture, scourging and crucifixion, resurrection and ascension, and martyrs etc., is not logical or rational and is the stuff “The Odyssey”, or Harry Potter and is fiction, invention and imagination and this teaching is not a good model to base the structure of civilisation.

I accept all your bible quotations as stated, but I interpret the bible as a beautiful book of philosophical parables and fables from which there is much to learn. I certainly have learned a great deal from it and it guides my life, However it is not immutable or infallible nor is it the only Word of God. My God is within me, in my Cerebral Cortex and Limbic system. The same concept applies to all other human beings and all living things.

I subscribe to “The Rock” and “The Remnant”. I read the Koran (I have had it explained to me by an Islamic academic), I read the Talmud and Torah, I read The Bhagavad-Gita and all other comparative religious texts. I do not accept the sinister concept of original sin, sacrilege, penance, indulgences, schisms, heresy, redemption, infallibility, excommunication and all other ‘made up’ tactics to frighten and scare the human race into Papal obedience.

There is more Love of God and Spirit of Jesus Christ when a pagan or atheist child takes it’s first steps, or formulates it’s first sentence, than in all the supposed sanctity of mythical Archangels, Angels, Saints, Popes, Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, and Mass’s and prayers put together. The fullness of time will show that all religious pageantry is nothing but the legacy of an archaic monarchical system and is nothing but orchestrated futility.

Anonymous

Listen, Mr Loughnan,

If you would stop compiling useless files on the SSPX and keep your finger on the pulse, you would know that EditorCT stands for Editor of Catholic Truth and my name is Patricia McKeever – available if you visit our website at the About Us page and click on the links to the various newspapers who have been dealt with for their inaccurate reporting of our work by the Press Complaints Commissionhttp://www.catholictruthscotland.com/aboutt.html Curious, though, that you think famous authors who used pseudonyms are “cowards” – or is it only bloggers you want identify themselves. Odd, since we are only ordinary people, not well known at all, so what on earth does it matter? Crackers. I mean, all I know about you is your name and that tells me nothing. Like I say, crackers.

If you think I’m going to waste time reading all your hostile stuff on the SSPX when I have no need to do so, crackers again. I take it you have never heard of the case of the “Hawaii Six”? Well, here goes.

“On January 18, 1991, Bishop Joseph Ferrario, the local Ordinary of Honolulu (now deceased), served them a Formal Canonical Warning, threatening them with excommunication.
On May 1, 1991, they were formally declared to be excommunicated, mainly for this reason contained in the Canonical Warning: “Whereas you performed,” Bishop Ferrario said, “a schismatic act, not only by procuring the services” of Bishop Williamson to perform confirmations at Our Lady of Fatima Chapel, “but also by that very association with the aforementioned bishop (you) incurred ipso facto the grave censure of excommunication.”
.
The “Excommunicated Six” immediately appealed the case to Rome. Finally, in a letter dated June 28, 1993, the USA’s Apostolic Pro-Nunico, Archbishop Cacciavillan, declared on Cardinal Ratzinger’s behalf:
From the examination of the case, conducted on the basis of the Law of the Church, it did not result that the facts referred to in the above-mentioned decree are formal schismatic acts in the strict sense, as they do not constitute the offense of schism; and therefore the Congregation holds that the Decree of May 1, 1991 lacks foundation and hence validity.
This is a declaration that the automatic (ipso facto) excommunication claimed by Bishop Ferrario for the followers of Archbishop Lefebvre is in fact totally non-existent.

Though a major milestone to proving that those who follow and support the SSPX are neither schismatic nor excommunicated, reference number 2 of Archbishop Cacciavillan’s June 28, 1993 letter, marred the clarity of the decree and the innocence of the petitioners by implying that sufficient guilt remained for them to placed under interdict by Bishop Ferrario. This was to say that while the Hawaii Six were not excommunicated and thereby members of the Catholic Church, they could have imposed upon them the “foreseen punishment of interdict…”, an episcopal declaration that none of the Six could receive the sacraments of the Church. Because Archbishop Cacciavillan had opened the letter saying he was writing “upon the instruction of His Eminence, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger,” it appeared to all that the punishment of interdict was the recommendation of the cardinal himself. Well, it wasn’t.

After nine months’ insistence by the Hawaii Six, Cardinal Ratzinger’s official, hand-signed Decree of June 4, 1993 nullifying the excommunications was finally released by Archbishop Cacciavillan to the petitioners under his February 28, 1993 cover letter. In this signed cover letter (reproduced in full at immediate right), Archbishop Cacciavillan admits that Cardinal Ratzinger said nothing about imposing interdict and, in fact, all of reference 2 is his idea alone and that Cardinal Ratzinger never said anything about “foreseen punishment of interdict or other penalties, . . .” http://www.sspx.org/diocesan_dialogues/honolulu_&_hawaii6.htm

Now, if that is not enough to convince you, I’ve just learned of a case myself where a bishop refused to allow an SSPX priest to offer the TLM in a parish in his diocese (a funeral Mass, so he was denying the request of the deceased) but – wait for this – the SSPX priest would be allowed to concelebrate the New Mass! I’ll be reporting this in more detail in our June edition. Only a few months ago, I attended two funeral Masses offered by SSPX priests in two different Scottish dioceses, in parishes where the deceased had asked to have their funeral (s) – both churches packed. This is a very odd kind of “schism” don’t you think?

Or maybe I’ve got it wrong: maybe a true schismatic (C of England of C of Scotland or Mormon minister) would be permitted to concelebrate at a New Mass and/or officiate at a Catholic funeral?

Now, don’t forget to tell me if Cardinal Ratzinger got it wrong by personally signing that Decree – or did he, like Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos exceed his authority?

Or, put another way – give up. I know the facts about the SSPX situation and none of the propaganda will convince me. You’ve made it clear that only the Pope’s word, delivered personally, will do. They call it papolatry. You dismiss Canon Law, you dismiss the Cardinals appointed to act on the Pope’s behalf so I’m getting the clear feeling that nothing short of “WOW Mr Loughnan, you, alone in all of the Church, got it right.” Think about that. The liberal Cardinal Cassidy told a press conference (in response to a question) that, no, the SSPX would not be included in his ecumenical endeavours because the SSPX is “an internal matter” (when, by definition, schismatics are OUTSIDE the Church.)
However, if you can so easily dismiss Canon Law, Cardinal Castrillon Hoyos, and no doubt Cardinal Ratzinger and the Hawaii Six decree, plus, surely, Cardinal Cassidy, you’re not likely to pay any heed to EditorCT, real name divulged or no real name divulged.

I’ll give you time to read the newspaper reports on our website before returning to read, no doubt, you accusation that I’m not only of a schismatic mentality, but ‘homophobic’ as well. I’m a very naughty girl, really.

Anonymous

Cardinal Schonborn was called into the Vatican and made to apologise to the Bishop of Mostar for his disgraceful behaviour in ignoring the Bishop’s wishes regarding that hoax place. You cannot compare such bad behaviour with a Cardinal appointed by the Pope to carry out a particular role, for carrying out that particular role, not to your liking. Get a grip.

AJ

Thanks for the reply, bro. If you are offended by the use of the word “demonic” which I just barrowed from some colleagues of yours from radical traditionalist group describing the spirit of Vatican II and the Church though I must admit YOU didn’t use the exact word to that I apologize.

The “nonsense” I wrote was not a charge but actually quote from YOUR comment :

Leprechaun said: “May God strengthen the SSPX and may it eventually eclipse the NONSENSE that has overtaken Christ’s Church in this past few years.” So you see it came from you, I’m just trying to ask you to provide some verifiable, truthful written evidence of this “nonsense” that overtook the Church.

If by chance your evidence is from a gossip, hearsay or just opinion of men that even protestants and heretics appeal to Scripture and Sacred Tradition, an appeal to the Holy Writ and Tradition is an appeal to one’s own interpretation of the Holy Writ and Tradition, in other words without any bearing NOR any Authority (by that I mean Authority of Jesus Christ to apostolic succession of the See of Peter) then I suggest you forget about it ‘ cause I tell you brother, there are a lot of them… “tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness” (Eph 4:14).

So sorry if you somehow perceive it’s a lecture because I’m just tired of these charges and lunacy of some radTrads (radical traditionalists) about their all consuming TM over Novus Ordo and VatII.Rad-Trads are single issue campaigners which is why defending JPII or any post Vatican II Pope is pointless because it is not really where they are coming from. Catholics are right not to engage with Rad-Trads because they cannot be satisfied on their own terms. Of course, they are not supposed to be satisfied by their own terms but that means changing the terms of the debate from liturgy and ‘reverence’ to more fundamental issues of obedience, humility and faith… which never happens.

Eventually this discussion will reach the point of “JPII was a liberal who broke with Catholic Tradition and, thus, it’s proof, proof, I say that the smoke of Satan has entered the Church and Satan has brought us the Pauline rite by him and men like him!” The solution will be a return to the Tridentine.

No Pope who accepts the Pauline rite will be seen as worthy in a Rad-Trads eyes. Period. Until, say, Pope Benedict, imposes the Tridentine rite as the Mass for all and does away with the Pauline rite , it matters not what he does in his reign he will always been seen as a liberal. The Rad-Trads, being utterly convinced that the rise of modernism, secularism and over other ‘ism’ going is all down to the submergance of the Tridentine, seek to find flaw in any and all Pope’s who do not force standardisation of the Tridentine.Conversely, any Pope that did restore the Tridentine, no matter that he beatified Karl Marx, would be lauded as the saviour of the Church.

I agree the liturgy is important. My beef is with the Rad-trads who reduce everything to liturgy and ‘reverence” totally forgot the good works done by JPII and BXVI fighting communism, liberation theology, hunger, poverty and spreading of the Gospel to the farthest reaches of the earth all for the glory of God.

I’m a traditionalist myself but not the kind of SSPX who still recalcitrant and disobeys the Church. Anyways, peace to you.

AJ

Thanks for the reply, bro. If you are offended by the use of the word “demonic” which I just barrowed from some colleagues of yours from radical traditionalist group describing the spirit of Vatican II and the Church though I must admit YOU didn’t use the exact word to that I apologize.

The “nonsense” I wrote was not a charge but actually quote from YOUR comment :

Leprechaun said: “May God strengthen the SSPX and may it eventually eclipse the NONSENSE that has overtaken Christ’s Church in this past few years.” So you see it came from you, I’m just trying to ask you to provide some verifiable, truthful written evidence of this “nonsense” that overtook the Church.

If by chance your evidence is from a gossip, hearsay or just opinion of men that even protestants and heretics appeal to Scripture and Sacred Tradition, an appeal to the Holy Writ and Tradition is an appeal to one’s own interpretation of the Holy Writ and Tradition, in other words without any bearing NOR any Authority (by that I mean Authority of Jesus Christ to apostolic succession of the See of Peter) then I suggest you forget about it ‘ cause I tell you brother, there are a lot of them… “tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness” (Eph 4:14).

So sorry if you somehow perceive it’s a lecture because I’m just tired of these charges and lunacy of some radTrads (radical traditionalists) about their all consuming TM over Novus Ordo and VatII.Rad-Trads are single issue campaigners which is why defending JPII or any post Vatican II Pope is pointless because it is not really where they are coming from. Catholics are right not to engage with Rad-Trads because they cannot be satisfied on their own terms. Of course, they are not supposed to be satisfied by their own terms but that means changing the terms of the debate from liturgy and ‘reverence’ to more fundamental issues of obedience, humility and faith… which never happens.

Eventually this discussion will reach the point of “JPII was a liberal who broke with Catholic Tradition and, thus, it’s proof, proof, I say that the smoke of Satan has entered the Church and Satan has brought us the Pauline rite by him and men like him!” The solution will be a return to the Tridentine.

No Pope who accepts the Pauline rite will be seen as worthy in a Rad-Trads eyes. Period. Until, say, Pope Benedict, imposes the Tridentine rite as the Mass for all and does away with the Pauline rite , it matters not what he does in his reign he will always been seen as a liberal. The Rad-Trads, being utterly convinced that the rise of modernism, secularism and over other ‘ism’ going is all down to the submergance of the Tridentine, seek to find flaw in any and all Pope’s who do not force standardisation of the Tridentine.Conversely, any Pope that did restore the Tridentine, no matter that he beatified Karl Marx, would be lauded as the saviour of the Church.

I agree the liturgy is important. My beef is with the Rad-trads who reduce everything to liturgy and ‘reverence” totally forgot the good works done by JPII and BXVI fighting communism, liberation theology, hunger, poverty and spreading of the Gospel to the farthest reaches of the earth all for the glory of God.

I’m a traditionalist myself but not the kind of SSPX who still recalcitrant and disobeys the Church. Anyways, peace to you.

AJ

The real question is, HOW would one know with certainty who is the loony or not? In other words, is one considered a loony if one just doesn’t agree with another own’s interpretation of Holy Writ and Sacred Tradition? Protestants and heretics al;ways appeal to the Holy Writ and Sacred Tradition to prove they are right and the Catholic Church wrong, HOW is ti different from your assertion and position?So, if there exists a dispute between to abiding catholics, WHO is the Final Authority to pass a judgment and settle it?

Jesus Christ, God Himself point to:

1. Me/SSPX/Sedevacantist/other RadTrad
2. Protestant churches
3. Magisterium of the Catholic Church (Apostolic Succession and the See of Peter)

Choose only ONE, there are a lot of confusion already since the great schism 500 years ago.

Petrus

The real question is this: Why would anyone risk their soul by dabbling in post-conciliar error. These horrors that happen every single day in modern diocese and parishes:

Bishops and priests spouting heresy from the pulpit, priests involved in homosexual relationships (my own parish had two active homosexual priests ministering to the people at the same time), Bishops and priests promoting homosexuality and turning a blind eye to those priests who do (Archbishop Nichols, Archbishop Bernard Longley, Cardinal O’Brien), Bishops and priests promoting contraception, Bishops going to transexual parties (Bishop Stack), Holy Communion been given in the hand, Extraordinary Ministers being used illicitly…I could go on and on and on.

I think I’ll stick with the Bishops and priests who cling to Catholic Tradition. There’s a certain blindness and hardness of heart that is certainly the punishent for denying elements of the Catholic Faith. Wow is it evident in abundance.

Jloughnan

Yes I can – and do! Irrespective of the “missio”s both are Cardinals; neither possesses the “Power of the Keys”; neither has produced an “authorative” declaration which has the Pope’s authority or approval; until such time as EITHERs words or actions have such papal approval in writing – what they say is simply their opinion.

Can someone explain fully what the term “anti-semite” actually means ? As reading my ancient History – it appears that the second son of Noah -Shem – aka Sem – was charged with re-populating the middle east after the flood – and at around the 5th cent b.c. – the Isrealites hi- jacked that term – “Semites’ and ever since then – anyone who disagrees with them were known as “anti – semitic”..anyone care to enlighten me otherwise..?

And, as you can see from the link above, extremely – HUGELY – important tasks.

You are, with respect, guilty of papolatry. You actually, literally, idolise the pope. Any and every pope. Not Catholic.

Jarra Lad

Brethren,
Let’s get two points clear and for certain in our minds 1) Vatican 11 was not a Doctrinal Council but only a Pastoral Council! 2) Neither therefore, Abp Lefebvre nor his legacy The Society of St Pius X changed the goal posts, but lets be honest with ourselves it was the post Concillar Church with the so-called Liberal minded Theologians, Hierarchies and Bishop’s Conferences’ Please forgive me as I do not usually use tags, whether be it Traditional, Conservative nor Liberal!
Having stated the above lets us ALL leave the Arena with a little of humility and stop arguing among ourselves! We need to pray for the Pope, the Church of Christ, which is being torn asunder, for World Peace and especially, for each other!
For we need to concentrate all our Spiritual Efforts with the Rallying Call of Prayer and Penance; for have we not to defeat both a greater evil threat and enmity which, is now sweeping over the World, Country, and which is also set on the annihilation of Our Holy Mother the Church: Radical Islam?

God Bless and help us ALL

Cheers,

Jarra Lad.

AJ

“Why would anyone risk their soul by dabbling in post-conciliar error”.

WHO is the one deciding who’s in error or no?

Choose one:

1.Petrus/SSPX/Sede/ other RadTrads
2. Magisterium of the Church

I choose the latter.

Now again, While I agree and totally symphasized with you about the abuses of some of our clergy who are not faithful to their vows and just try to advance their own selfish agenda, you got to CLEARLY DISTINGUISH that these are PERSONAL SINS of people, of human beings! If these people disagree and being disobedient with any Church Teaching (e.g. you gave artificial contraception etc) it does NOT NECESSARILY means that the Church Teaching on “X” (artificial contraception) is not valid and true. regardless if this Bishop so and so said this or that, the Teaching about “X” is still TRUE.

So when the FULL Authority of the Church said the Teachings of Vatican II is valid, regardless of who said otherwise doesn’t make it so, IT IS VALID AND TRUE. So, also if the Church said, Novus Ordo Mass is valid, stop the criticism already,the case is closed, so if the Church said, the laity could help in the distribution of the Most Holy Eucharist (thus created EMHC office) then stop the blaberring, the Teaching is true, so when the Church said, JPII is Blessed and belonged among the inhabitants of Heaven, then we should stop the protest and indignation the Judgment of the Church is FINAL and so on and so forth, do you get my point, bro. Petrus?

If then as you seemed to imply in your post above there are those abusers (clergy or laity) who violate the said Church Teachings then they are considered “personal sins” which we as a laity have the duty to inform our superiors, to Bishops to the ArchBishops and to the Pope if necessary and inform them about the “alleged” cases.

Just be aware of our limitations as human beings and laity of the Church…we are NOT judges and Authority to pass decision and judgment, be prudent and humble as God will not abandon His Church and He will do the judging.

Peace

AJ

Ain’t that the truth, it hurts! Thanks F. John for the FACTS! This is the problem with RadTrads presented with FACTS, they just try to squirm and wriggle out of the truth that they insisted there IS NO schism to begin with.

The last time I check Vatican Documents…the anathema is still enforced and was never lifted for the founder of SSPX. Out of CLEMENCY and the HOPE of full communion on the Pope (humble!) lifted the verdict for the last 4 surviving Bishops of SSPX (still arrogant!).

No reason to rejoice and yet sad indeed.

Define EX-COMMUNICATION…..oh rather not but to put it lamely it is a separation from the Church -just OUTSIDE!

Pope Paul VI’s substantial achievement was to steer the Council to a closure albeit with some uncertainties, but eventually with a moral unanimity despite the small minority opposition. He promulgated all its sixteen documents and closed the Council on 8 December 1965. There can be little doubt that Pope Paul was aware of residual opposition and felt it necessary to address the Roman Curia in uncompromising terms:

Whatever were our opinions about the Council’s various doctrines before its conclusions were promulgated, today our adherence to the decisions of the Council must be whole hearted and without reserve; it must be willing and prepared to give them the service of our thought, action and conduct. The Council was something very new: not all were prepared to understand and accept it. But now the conciliar doctrine must be seen as belonging to the magisterium of the Church and, indeed, be attributed to the breath of the Holy Spirit. (Paul VI to the Roman Curia, 23 April, 1966)

Quote
James Bogle’s description of Vatican II as a “pastoral Council” needs clarification, especially as some call it “only pastoral”.

The term “pastoral council” as applied to Vatican II is merely a popular description and does not refer to any specific type of council recognised by the authority of the Catholic Church. There are traditionally councils, or synods, which are styled “national councils,” “provincial councils” or “general (ecumenical)” councils, but none styled specifically a “pastoral council.”

Pope John XXIII himself, in using the word, spoke of the need of a Church Magisterium “which is predominantly pastoral in character.” Pope Paul VI similarly spoke of the “pastoral nature of the Council” in his Weekly General Audience of 12 January 1966, but he didn’t call it a “pastoral council”.

Vatican II has two Dogmatic Constitutions – the same as Vatican I which issued the dogma on papal infallibility in defining doctrine. In Vatican II, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church ( Lumen Gentium) #25 teaches that bishops “proclaim infallibly the doctrine of Christ … when … in their authoritative teaching on faith and morals, they are in agreement that a particular teaching is to be held definitely and absolutely.
“This is still more clearly the case when, assembled in an ecumenical council … whose decisions must be adhered to with the loyal and obedient assent of faith.” Fr John A. Hardon SJ describes this as “collegial infallibility” marking “a turning point in doctrinal history” (The Catholic Catechism, 1975, Doubleday, pp. 232233).

The Council defined that the assent of will and intellect are required of non-infallible papal teaching, for the first time (LG 25), and that Christ’s Church was as indispensable as Christ for the salvation of all mankind (LG 38, op. cit., p. 236).

Of Lumen Gentium #8, that “the sole Church of Christ … subsists in the Catholic Church”, Fr Hardon declares this is “unequivocal for the first time in conciliar history” – namely the Church is not one of many branches (p. 213).

Is it simply a matter of choice – whether we accept the directions of Pope Paul VI and now Pope Benedict XVI? What authority does Jarra Lad possess to convince us in HIS conviction?

In any event – none of his arguement covers the deliberate disobedience of Archbishop Lefebvre to consecrate bishops CONTRARY to the DIRECTn command of the Pope (nor, previously, the same contempt of his and his priests for their legitimate suspension a divinis – does it?

Michael

Editor CT

I have spent much time defending SSPX against hardline sedevacantist protestant viewpoints hostile to the SSPX for remaining close to being in communion with the Mother Church but unwilling to take the plunge.

I also value the SSPX and their love of the Mass of the Saints and wish that they would come into authentic communion with the Mother Church. I applaud Benedict XVI’s efforts to try to welcome them back.

I also can see from personal testimony of people from the SSPX that caution should be exercised when leveling charges of anti-semiticism.

However the comments also reveal serious protestant leanings in the membership and that is a potential consequence of Cafeteria Catholicism at the more traditional end just as it forms a likely consequence at the liberal end. SSPX want to have it both ways. They are happy to deny the authority of the Pope and Magisterium and go their own way but generally observe Catholic tradition and participate in (albeit a potentially illicit version) of the Mass of the Saints. Fortunately they claim to be in communion and don’t as a group stray into overt protestantism like the sedevacantists as that would destroy their rationalization.

The charge that sedevacantist protestants attend SSPX Masses has been leveled and it would not be surprising that protestants apeing Catholic Tradition should be attracted to this cafeteria approach. Please come home we need more traditional Catholics because ultimately Catholicism is built on Apostolic tradition.

“ Those who scream “schismatic” at the SSPX, who really prefer the Bugnini Mass, despite its Masonic origins and involvement of six Protestant Ministers (many times, modern Catholics have responded to this information from me with “So? What about it?” Protestantised to their fingertips) … “

We don’t just say what about it? The key thing that separates us from Protestants is that we accept Papal and Magisterial authority. When you put a spin on things that suggests that a Mass held valid by Catholic authority is invalid the question we ask is: Do you? Leave your freedom of conscience to judge Masses out of this we don’t operate from that type of perspective so such arguments hold no currency with Catholics.

Petrus

“The real question is this: Why would anyone risk their soul by dabbling in post-conciliar error. These horrors that happen every single day in modern diocese and parishes:”

You are starting to sound like Martin Luther. We are in a time of confusion and there are many historical precedents but the Mother Church will remain a bulwark of the truth even if there is dissent among clergy. I prefer to refrain from such dabbling.

”Bishops and priests spouting heresy from the pulpit, priests involved in homosexual relationships (my own parish had two active homosexual priests ministering to the people at the same time), Bishops and priests promoting homosexuality and turning a blind eye to those priests who do (Archbishop Nichols, Archbishop Bernard Longley, Cardinal O’Brien), Bishops and priests promoting contraception, Bishops going to transexual parties (Bishop Stack), Holy Communion been given in the hand, Extraordinary Ministers being used illicitly…I could go on and on and on. “

In a Church of 1.5 billion I’m sure you can. The secular mass media do it all the time even if they have to front page a criminal act from 50 years ago. Jesus was a scandal to outsiders and so too is the Church He commenced. As long as the Holy Father publically states that gay parenting does violence to children, that gay marriage is “insidious and dangerous”, that he is committed to “sweeping the filth (pedophiles) from the Church”, riles protestants with the comment that only the Catholic Church teaches the fullness of the Christian faith, and rejects abortion and contraceptive usage we will be a scandal. Cardinal Newman pointed out that it is an element of the eternal Church’s permanent identity, simper idem, that she must be slandered. As he put it “Oh, what would not our enemies have paid for only one real and live sin in the holy places to mock us withal!… O sweet tidings to the writers of pamphlets, newspapers, and magazines… who have now a weary while been longing and panting, and praying for some good fat scandal, one, only just one, well-supported instance of… fraud or immorality, to batten upon and revel in!” He reminds us of the words of Christ “It must needs be, that scandals come; nevertheless, woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh”(Mt.18:7). He further stated “…Some accident.. a sudden scandal among our priests.. or some bold and reckless falsehood, may raise all England against us.” As Chene Richard Heady points out in The New Oxford Review “All too few Americans followed Sierrra Leone’s nine-year civil war (1991-2000), but now that a Catholic priest had committed sexual abuse there, Sierra Lenone was suddenly news.” He noted that the priest concerned had been laicized but that didn’t prevent a title of “Catholics Sent Predator Priest to Remote Village”.

”I think I’ll stick with the Bishops and priests who cling to Catholic Tradition. There’s a certain blindness and hardness of heart that is certainly the punishent for denying elements of the Catholic Faith. Wow is it evident in abundance.”

Picking and choosing which aspects of Catholic Tradition that they want to cling to doesn’t make them Saints. As AJ typed:

“WHO is the one deciding who’s in error or no?

Choose one:

1.Petrus/SSPX/Sede/ other RadTrads
2. Magisterium of the Church”

Is the 2000 year tradition of choosing “2” one they cling to or is it just the liturgy that was unchanged between the 9th Century and 20th Century when an alternative version was offered? The same liturgy I attend but in communion with Our Mother Church not over the line following an excommunicated Bishop.